☒ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017

or

☐

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number 001-37848

KINSALE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

98-0664337

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

2221 Edward Holland Drive Suite 600

Richmond, Virginia

(Address of principal executive offices)

23230

(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (804) 289-1300

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

(Title of each class)

Nasdaq Global Select Market

(Name of each exchange on which registered)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Large accelerated filer ☒

Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☐(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the shares of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2017 was approximately $706,063,693.

The number of the registrant’s common shares outstanding was 21,047,452 as of February 23, 2018.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2018 annual meeting of stockholders (the "2018 Proxy Statement") are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The 2018 Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include any statement that does not directly relate to historical or current fact. These statements may discuss, among others, our future financial performance, our business prospects and strategy, our anticipated financial position, liquidity and capital, dividends and general market and industry conditions. You can identify forward-looking statements by words such as "anticipates," "estimates," "expects," "intends," "plans," "predicts," "projects," "believes," "seeks," "outlook," "future," "will," "would," "should," "could," "may," "can have" and similar terms. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions about future events, which are subject to uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. These statements are only predictions and are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by a forward-looking statement. Factors that may cause such differences include, without limitation:

•

the possibility that our loss reserves may be inadequate to cover our actual losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows;

•

the inherent uncertainty of models resulting in actual losses that are materially different than our estimates;

•

adverse economic factors, including recession, inflation, periods of high unemployment or lower economic activity resulting in the sale of fewer policies than expected or an increase in frequency or severity of claims and premium defaults or both, affecting our growth and profitability;

•

a decline in our financial strength rating adversely affecting the amount of business we write;

•

the potential loss of one or more key executives or an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel adversely affecting our results of operations;

•

our reliance on a select group of brokers;

•

the failure of any of the loss limitations or exclusions we employ, or change in other claims or coverage issues, having a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations;

the changing market conditions of our excess and surplus lines ("E&S") insurance operations, as well as the cyclical nature of our business, affecting our financial performance;

•

extensive regulation adversely affecting our ability to achieve our business objectives or the failure to comply with these regulations adversely affecting our financial condition and results of operations;

•

the ability to pay dividends being dependent on our ability to obtain cash dividends or other permitted payments from our insurance subsidiary;

•

being forced to sell investments to meet our liquidity requirements;

•

the inability to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable prices and on terms that adequately protect us;

•

our employees taking excessive risks;

•

the possibility that severe weather conditions and other catastrophes may result in an increase in the number and amount of claims filed against us;

the failure to maintain effective internal controls in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"); and

•

the other risks and uncertainties discussed in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made. Except as expressly required under federal securities laws or the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), we do not assume any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements.

Unless the context requires otherwise, the words "Kinsale," the "Company," "we," "us" and "our'" in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refer to Kinsale Capital Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Item 1. Business

Kinsale focuses exclusively on the excess and surplus lines ("E&S") market in the U.S., where we can use our underwriting expertise to write coverages for hard-to-place small business risks and personal lines risks. We market and sell these insurance products in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands primarily through a network of independent insurance brokers. Our experienced and cohesive management team has an average of over 25 years of experience in the E&S market. Many of our employees and members of our management team have also worked together for decades at other E&S insurance companies.

Our goal is to deliver long-term value for our stockholders by growing our business and generating attractive returns. We seek to accomplish this by generating consistent and attractive underwriting profits while managing our capital prudently. Using our proprietary technology platform and leveraging the expertise of our highly experienced employees in our daily operations, we have built a company that is entrepreneurial and highly efficient. We believe our systems and technology are at the digital forefront of the insurance industry and allow us to quickly collect and analyze data, thereby improving our ability to manage our business and reduce our response times for our customers. We believe that we have differentiated ourselves from our competitors by effectively leveraging technology, vigilantly controlling expenses and maintaining control over our underwriting and claims operations.

We have significantly grown our business and have generated attractive returns. Excluding the impact of the $72.8 million of net proceeds from our initial public offering ("IPO") during the third quarter of 2016, we have organically grown our stockholders’ equity at a compound annual growth rate ("CAGR") of 21.2% as of December 31, 2017 from December 31, 2013. We have grown our gross written premiums from $125.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 to $223.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, a CAGR of 15.5%. Our return on equity and combined ratios were 11.1% and 84.0%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2017. We believe that we are well positioned to continue to capitalize on attractive opportunities in our target market and to prudently grow our business.

History

Kinsale Capital Group, Inc., a Delaware domiciled insurance holding company, was formed on June 3, 2009 for the purpose of acquiring and managing insurance entities. Prior to September 5, 2014, the Company was a Bermuda registered holding company, formerly known as Kinsale Capital Group, Ltd. ("KCGL"). Effective September 5, 2014, KCGL was re-domesticated from Bermuda to Delaware. A wholly-owned subsidiary of KCGL, Kinsale Capital Group, Inc., which was formed on June 4, 2009 as a U.S. holding company, was immediately merged into the re-domesticated entity and Kinsale Capital Group, Ltd. changed its name to Kinsale Capital Group, Inc.

On June 4, 2009, we incorporated Kinsale Management, Inc. ("Kinsale Management") as a wholly-owned subsidiary domiciled in Delaware, in order to provide management services to all of our U.S.-based subsidiaries.

On February 5, 2010, we acquired American Healthcare Specialty Insurance Company and changed its name to Kinsale Insurance Company ("Kinsale Insurance"). Kinsale Insurance is an Arkansas-domiciled insurance company and is eligible to operate on an excess and surplus lines basis in 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

On August 21, 2013, we established Aspera Insurance Services, Inc. ("Aspera"), an insurance broker. Aspera is domiciled in Virginia and is authorized to conduct business in Virginia, Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas.

We write a broad array of insurance coverages for risks that are unique or hard-to-place in the standard insurance market. Typical E&S risks include newly established companies or industries, high-risk operations, insureds in litigious venues, or companies with poor loss histories. We target classes of business where our underwriters have extensive experience allowing us to compete effectively and earn attractive risk-adjusted returns. Our underwriters specialize in individual lines of business which allow them to develop in-depth knowledge and experience of the risks they underwrite. Our core client focus is small to medium-sized accounts, which we believe tend to be subject to less competition and have better pricing. The average premium on a policy written by us in 2017 was approximately $8,200. We believe that our strategy, experience and expertise allow us to compete effectively in the E&S market and will enable us to generate attractive long-term stockholder value.

In 2017, the percentage breakdown of our gross written premiums was 93.4% casualty and 6.6% property. Our commercial lines offerings include construction, small business, energy, excess casualty, general casualty, product liability, professional liability, life sciences, allied health, health care, commercial property, management liability, environmental, public entity, inland marine and commercial insurance.We also write a small amount of homeowners insurance in the personal lines market, which in aggregate represented 3.9% of our gross written premiums in 2017.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that our competitive strengths include:

Exclusive focus on the E&S market. The E&S, or non-admitted, market has historically operated at lower loss ratios and higher margins, and has grown direct premiums written more quickly than the admitted market. From 2001 to 2016, A.M. Best Company's ("A.M. Best") domestic professional surplus lines composite produced an average net loss and loss adjustment expense ratio of 69.0% and grew direct premiums written by 6.9% annually, versus 73.9% and 3.5% respectively for the property and casualty ("P&C") industry.

Underwriting expertise across a broad spectrum of hard-to-place risks. We have a broad appetite to underwrite a diverse set of risks across the E&S market. Our underwriting team is highly experienced, and individually underwrites each risk to appropriately price and structure solutions. We balance our broad risk appetite by maintaining a diversified book of smaller accounts with strong pricing and well defined coverages. Unlike many of our competitors, we do not extend underwriting authority to brokers, agents or other third parties. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our loss ratio was 58.9%.

Technology is a core competency. As an insurance company that was founded in 2009, we have the benefit of having built a proprietary technology platform that reflects the best practices our management team has learned from its extensive prior experience. We operate on a single digital platform with a data warehouse that collects a vast array of statistical data. Our platform provides a high degree of efficiency, accuracy and speed across all of our processes. We are able to use the data that we collect to quickly analyze trends across all functions in our business. Our customized proprietary system helps us to reduce the risk of administrative errors in our policy forms and include all of the necessary exclusions for the specified risk, and provides for the efficient and accurate handling of claims. Additionally, our systems enable us to rapidly respond to brokers, allowing our underwriters to reply to the majority of submissions within 24 hours, a significant benefit to our brokers. We believe that our technology platform will provide us with an enduring competitive advantage as it allows us to quickly respond to market opportunities, and will continue to scale as our business grows.

Significantly lower expense ratio than our competitors. Expense management is ingrained in our business culture. We believe that our proprietary technology platform coupled with our low-cost operation allow us to process policy quotes, underwrite policies and operate at a lower cost than our direct competitors. In particular, our efficient platform allows us to provide a higher level of service to our brokers and to target smaller accounts which we believe are generally subject to less competition. For the year ended December 31, 2017 our expense ratio was 25.1%.

Fully integrated claims management. We believe that actively managing our claims is an important aspect of keeping losses low, while accurately setting reserves. We manage all of our claims in-house and do not delegate claims management authority to third parties. We promptly and thoroughly investigate all claims, generally through direct contact with the insured, and leverage both our systems and our underwriters to gather the relevant facts. When we believe claims

are without merit, we vigorously contest payment. We currently average 134 open claims per claims adjuster (111 open claims per claims adjuster excluding catastrophe claims), which we believe is significantly lower than industry average. As of December 31, 2017, our reserves for claims incurred but not reported were approximately 81.1% of our total net loss reserves. Of the total open claims as of December 31, 2017, only 31.2% were open for accident years 2015 and prior.

Entrepreneurial management team with a track record of success. Our management team is highly experienced with an average of over 25 years of relevant experience, bringing together a full suite of underwriting, claims, technology and operating skills that we believe will drive our long-term success. The majority of our management team has a proven track record of successfully building high performing specialty insurance companies. We are led by Michael Kehoe who, prior to founding Kinsale, was the president and chief executive officer of James River Insurance Company from 2002 until 2008. Prior to James River Insurance Company, Mr. Kehoe held several senior positions at Colony Insurance Company. Many of our other employees and members of our management team worked with Mr. Kehoe at James River Insurance Company and have decades of experience at other E&S insurance companies. As meaningful owners of Kinsale, we believe our management team has closely aligned interests with our stockholders.

Our Board of Directors has deep insurance and financial services industry experience. Our Board of Directors is comprised of accomplished industry veterans. Collectively, our board members bring decades of experience from their prior roles operating and working in insurance and other financial services companies.

Our Strategy

We believe that our approach to our business will allow us to achieve our goals of both growing our business and generating attractive returns. Our approach involves:

Expand our presence in the E&S market. According to A.M. Best, the total E&S market was approximately $42.4 billion of direct written premiums in 2016. Based on our 2017 gross written premiums of $223.2 million, our current market share is approximately 0.5%. We believe that our exclusive focus on the E&S market and our high levels of service, including our ability to quote, underwrite and bind insurance policies in a timely manner given our efficient systems, allow us to better serve our brokers and positions us to profitably increase our market share.

Generate underwriting profits. We will continue to focus on underwriting profitability regardless of market cycles. Our strategy is to concentrate on hard-to-place risks and to maintain adequate rate levels for the risks that we underwrite. We maintain control over our underwriting process to ensure consistent quality of work. We underwrite each account individually and never delegate authority to any outside agents or brokers.

Maintain a contrarian risk appetite. Our flexibility as an E&S insurer enables us to write business at attractive returns while offering competitive policies to our brokers and insureds. We believe we distinguish ourselves in the market with our contrarian risk appetite and our willingness to offer terms on risks requiring more extensive underwriting that some of our competitors may decline to consider. Such accounts frequently offer us a better risk-adjusted return than those preferred by our competitors due to reduced competition.

Leverage investment in technology to drive efficiencies. We use a proprietary technology platform to drive a high level of efficiency, accuracy and speed in our underwriting and quoting process. We have organized our workflows, designed our systems and aligned our staff to provide superior service levels to brokers while achieving a level of efficiency that we believe provides us with a competitive advantage and helps contribute to our low expense ratio. We believe that automation also reduces human error in our underwriting, policy processing, accounting, collections, and claims adjusting processes. Additionally, we are able to track quotes, monitor historical loss experience and reserve development, and measure other relevant metrics at a granular level of detail. We believe that our technology is scalable and will allow us to maintain a low expense ratio as we continue to organically grow our business.

Maintain a strong balance sheet.In order to maintain the confidence of policyholders, brokers, reinsurers, investors, regulators and rating agencies, we seek to establish and maintain a conservative balance sheet. We have a robust process for setting our loss reserves and regularly reviewing our estimates. In addition, we maintain a conservative investment portfolio. Our strong balance sheet allows us to maintain the confidence of our investors and other constituencies, and thereby position ourselves to better achieve our goals.

We write a broad array of coverages with a focus on smaller commercial buyers. Our average premium in 2017 was approximately $8,200. In 2017, the percentage breakdown of our gross written premiums was 93.4% casualty and 6.6% property. Our commercial lines product offerings include construction, small business, professional liability, excess casualty, general casualty, energy, life sciences, allied health, product liability, health care, commercial property, management liability, inland marine, environmental, public entity and commercial insurance. We also write a small amount of homeowners insurance in the personal lines market, which in aggregate represented 3.9% of our gross written premiums in 2017. Our business is primarily distributed through independent brokers.

The following table shows our gross written premiums by underwriting divisionfor the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

Year Ended December 31,

2017

2016

2015

($ in thousands)

Gross written premium by division:

Commercial:

Construction

$

48,587

$

42,234

$

36,932

Small business

34,896

27,333

21,468

Energy

22,898

16,157

19,022

Excess casualty

20,260

17,799

16,194

General casualty

15,865

16,162

20,511

Products liability

14,288

10,140

9,480

Professional liability

12,956

14,212

14,636

Life sciences

12,408

10,897

11,935

Allied health

10,645

9,344

8,644

Healthcare

6,235

6,594

6,579

Commercial property

5,609

4,835

6,181

Management liability

4,123

2,244

420

Environmental

2,692

1,931

1,005

Public entity

1,265

875

—

Inland marine

967

910

195

Commercial insurance

816

459

—

Total commercial

214,510

182,126

173,202

Personal:

Personal insurance

8,681

6,352

3,807

Total personal

8,681

6,352

3,807

Total

$

223,191

$

188,478

$

177,009

Construction underwrites commercial general liability coverage on contractors focusing on new residential construction, residential remodeling and renovation and commercial construction. Policy limits offered are generally $1 million per occurrence.

Small business underwrites commercial general liability on smaller risks with an emphasis on artisan contractors and premises related exposures. The majority of policies written in this division are for limits of $1 million per occurrence.

Energy underwrites commercial general liability, pollution liability, professional liability and excess liability on enterprises engaged in the business of energy production or distribution or mining including drillers, lease operators, contractors and product manufacturers. The policy limits offered range from $1 million to $10 million.

Excess casualty underwrites excess liability over risks that would fit within the general casualty, construction, products liability and small business divisions above. Coverage is written over our primary liability policies as well as those of other insurers. This division also writes excess liability over primary commercial auto liability policies written by other carriers. We typically provide between $1 million and $10 million per occurrence limits above a $1 million attachment point.

Products liability underwrites commercial general liability on manufacturers, distributors and importers of a wide array of consumer, commercial and industrial products. We generally write $1 million per occurrence limits.

Allied health underwrites commercial general liability, professional liability and excess liability on allied health and social service risks including assisted living facilities, home health care agencies and outpatient medical facilities. Policy limits offered are between $1 million to $10 million.

Health care underwrites medical professional liability for physicians, surgeons, dentists, chiropractors and podiatrists. Policies cover both individuals and small practice groups. We generally write $1 million per occurrence in limits.

Commercial property underwrites catastrophe-exposed risks including manufacturing facilities, government and municipal buildings, professional buildings, offices and general commercial properties, vacant properties, as well as entertainment and retail facilities. Policy limits offered are generally $10 million or less per occurrence.

Management liability underwrites directors and officers liability, employment practices liability and fiduciary liability coverage on a variety of commercial and government risks. Policy limits offered are $1 million to $5 million.

Environmental underwrites commercial general liability, pollution liability and professional liability on a wide range of commercial risks where environmental exposures exist that are operational in nature or related to the premises. Policy limits offered in this coverage are up to $10 million per occurrence.

Public entity underwrites law enforcement professional liability and school board liability. Policy limits offered are generally $1 million.

Inland marine underwrites a variety of inland marine coverages including builders risk, contractors' equipment, transportation risks and mobile equipment. Policy limits offered in this coverage are typically $2 million per occurrence or less.

We sell policies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The following tables show our gross written premiums by state for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.

Year Ended December 31,

2017

% of Total

2016

% of Total

2015

% of Total

($ in thousands)

Gross written premiums by state:

California

$

60,632

27.2

%

$

51,619

27.4

%

$

43,473

24.6

%

Texas

31,732

14.2

%

26,060

13.8

%

26,607

15.0

%

Florida

24,964

11.2

%

19,873

10.5

%

16,199

9.2

%

Washington

11,454

5.1

%

8,892

4.7

%

7,199

4.1

%

New York

10,378

4.6

%

9,680

5.2

%

11,549

6.6

%

New Jersey

7,208

3.2

%

6,801

3.6

%

7,119

4.0

%

Nevada

4,871

2.2

%

4,894

2.6

%

3,673

2.1

%

Arizona

4,587

2.1

%

4,093

2.2

%

3,788

2.1

%

Illinois

4,404

2.0

%

3,438

1.8

%

3,062

1.7

%

Pennsylvania

4,383

2.0

%

4,016

2.1

%

3,960

2.2

%

All other states

58,578

26.2

%

49,112

26.1

%

50,380

28.4

%

$

223,191

100.0

%

$

188,478

100.0

%

$

177,009

100.0

%

Marketing and Distribution

We market our products through a broad group of independent insurance brokers that we believe can consistently produce reasonable volumes of quality business for us. We also sell policies through our wholly-owned broker, Aspera. Aspera distributes 4.3% of Kinsale’s premiums, primarily personal lines, through independent brokers. Kinsale does not grant its brokers any underwriting or claims authority.

We select our brokers based on management's review of the experience, knowledge and business plan of each broker. While many of our brokers have more than one office, we evaluate each office as if it were a separate brokerage and may appoint some but not all offices owned by a broker for specialized lines of business. We seek brokers with business plans that are consistent with our strategy and underwriting objectives. Brokers must be able to demonstrate an ability to competently produce both the quality and quantity of business that we seek. For our more specialized divisions, we seek to appoint brokers that have a similar focus and demonstrated experience in the particular line of business. Brokers who produce unacceptably low volumes of business may be terminated. Our underwriters regularly visit with brokers in their offices in order to market to these brokers and discuss the products we offer.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our largest brokers were AmWINS Group, LLC, which produced $26.4 million, or 11.8%, of our gross written premiums, CRC Insurance Services Inc., which produced $24.4 million, or 10.9%, of our gross written premiums, and R-T Specialty, LLC, which produced $23.1 million, or 10.4%, of our gross written premiums. No other broker accounted for more than 10% of our gross written premiums in the year ended December 31, 2017.

It is important to us that we maintain excellent relationships with the group of brokers who present business to us. Commissions are an important part of that relationship, but brokers will also typically consider the ultimate price to the insured, and the service and expertise offered by the carrier when determining where to place their business. In 2017, we paid an average commission to our brokers of 14.8% of gross written premiums. We believe this is slightly lower than the average commission paid by our competitors. We believe that our specialization in hard-to-place risks, combined with our high degree of service, including our rapid speed-to-quote, permits us to manage our commission expense as part of our overall management of the underwriting process. Additionally, we do not contract out our underwriting to program managers or general agents which typically requires a higher commission level to compensate the third party for its work on behalf of the carrier.

Our underwriting department consisted of 89 employees as of December 31, 2017. We use our proprietary technology platform to drive a high level of efficiency, accuracy and speed in our underwriting and quoting process. We believe our internal business processing systems allow us to maintain a high ratio of underwriters to total employees, as we do not require a significant number of administrative personnel to facilitate our underwriting process. We also believe that our digital environment allows us to engage fewer employees in policy administration.

We are very selective in the policies we choose to bind, with approximately one in every 9 submissions bound. If our underwriters cannot reasonably expect to bind coverage at the combination of premium and coverage that meets our standards, they are encouraged to quickly move on to another prospective opportunity. For the year ended December 31, 2017, we received approximately 226,000 new business submissions, issued approximately 116,000 new quotes and bound 14,000 new policies for a policy to new submission ratio of 6.2%. We are careful to establish terms that are suited to the risk and the pricing of our policies. As an E&S company, we use our freedom of rate and form assertively in order to appropriately underwrite risks that have already been rejected by licensed carriers based on approved forms and filed rates.

Beyond simply selecting risks, we attempt to craft policies that offer affordable protection to insureds by tailoring coverages in ways that make potential losses more predictable and reduce claims costs. For example, our "defense inside the limits" clause, which we applied to more than 98% of our Professional Liability premiums written in 2017, means that funds we expend defending an insured against a claim are counted against the total policy limit. We believe we do not have any material exposure to claims from asbestos, lead paint, silica, mold or nuclear, biological or chemical terrorism.

Claims

Our claims department consisted of 18 claims professionals who had an average of 10 years of claims experience in the P&C industry as of December 31, 2017. Our Chief Claims Officer has over30years of claims experience in large commercial and specialty insurance claims departments. Our claims department is fully integrated with our other functional departments. We manage all of our claims in-house and do not delegate claims management authority to third parties.

We focus on the effective management of the claims adjusting process. This process is achieved by extending low reserve and settlement authority levels to our front line claim examiners; keeping the adjuster-to-supervisor ratios low to allow for greater supervision over the adjusting process; and monitoring the number of claims handled by each claims examiner. This method ensures that two or more members of the department participate in the decision-making process when appropriate; our claim examiners recognize and address key issues; and reserves are adjusted to the appropriate amount as necessary. We seek to manage the number of claims per claims examiner to allow our claim examiners sufficient time to review and investigate claims submitted. Moreover, prior to any scheduled mediation or trial, claims personnel conduct further peer review to ensure that issues and exposures have been adequately analyzed. In addition, our claim examiners work closely with members of the underwriting staff to keep them apprised of claim trends. Vendor management is also important and our claim examiners work closely with our vendors to manage expenses and costs.

We have built a proprietary technology platform that reflects the best practices our management team has learned from its extensive prior experiences. Our proprietary technology platform is comprised of 14 modules linked together in a common system. All of the modules currently in use were developed in-house. We designed the architecture for our information systems in a fashion that would allow us to reduce our administrative costs and quickly provide us with useful information. Our insurance company subsidiary operates in a digital environment, which eliminates the costs of printing, storing and handling thousands of documents each week. Moreover, by maintaining electronic files on each account, we

have been able to facilitate clear communication among personnel responsible for handling matters related to underwriting, servicing and claims as each has access to full information regarding the account.

We use a browser-based platform approach to processing business. When a broker makes a submission, the information is transferred into our browser-based underwriting system. This eliminates costly data-entry steps in our underwriting process and permits the underwriter to focus on underwriting the account accurately and rapidly.

Since inception, we have been intent on capturing and analyzing our data and building, over time, a robust repository of information that we can use to improve our decision making. We refer to this repository as our data warehouse. The design of our data warehouse permits us to capture a vast array of statistical data, collected by the policy management systems at Kinsale. The data warehouse is easily searchable, collects and labels information in a consistent format and contains most of the underwriting and claims information we collect at every level. The data warehouse permits us flexibility with regard to analyzing our business by segment or in the aggregate. We believe theproprietary technology platform, which includes the data warehouse, is a competitive advantage for us.

Reinsurance

We enter into various reinsurance contracts to limit our exposure to potential losses arising from large risks and to provide additional capacity for growth. Reinsurance involves an insurance company transferring ("ceding") a portion of its exposure on a risk to another insurer, the reinsurer. The reinsurer assumes the exposure in return for a portion of the premium. The ceding of liability to a reinsurer does not legally discharge the primary insurer from its liability for the full amount of the policies on which it obtains reinsurance. The primary insurer remains liable for the entire loss if the reinsurer fails to meet its obligations under the reinsurance agreement.

We use treaty reinsurance and, on a limited basis, facultative reinsurance coverage. Treaty coverage refers to a reinsurance contract that is applied to a group or class of business where all the risks written meet the criteria for that class. Facultative coverage refers to a reinsurance contract on individual risks as opposed to a group or class of business. It is used for a variety of reasons, including supplementing the limits provided by the treaty coverage or covering risks or perils excluded from treaty reinsurance.

Historically, we ceded risks through our MLQS. The MLQS transferred a portion of the risk related to certain lines of business written by us to reinsurers in exchange for a proportion of the gross written premiums on that business. Transferring risk to the reinsurers also reduced the amount of capital required to support our insurance operations. Under the terms of the MLQS contract covering the 2016 calendar year ("2016 MLQS"), we received a provisional ceding commission equal to 41% of ceded written premiums and paid a reinsurance margin equal to 4% of ceded written premium. The MLQS included a sliding scale commission provision that reduced the ceding commission to 25% or increased the ceding commission to 41% based on the loss experience of the business ceded. Additionally, we were entitled to an additional contingent profit commission up to an amount equal to all of the reinsurers’ profits above the margin based on the underwriting results of the business ceded, upon commutation of the contract. The contract had a loss ratio cap of 110%, which means that we could not cede any losses in excess of a 110% loss ratio to the reinsurers.As a result of the successful completion of our IPO in August 2016, we terminated and commuted the 2016 MLQS contract on October 1, 2016. Effective January 1, 2017, we commuted the remaining outstanding MLQS contract, which covered the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. For a discussion regarding the effects of the MLQS contract on our results, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Overview."

The following is a summary of our significant reinsurance programs as of December 31, 2017:

Line of Business Covered

Company Policy Limit

Reinsurance Coverage

Company Retention

Property - per risk

Up to $10.0 million per occurrence

$9.0 million excess of $1.0 million

$1.0 million per occurrence

Property - catastrophe (1)

N/A

$45.0 million excess of $5.0 million

$5.0 million per catastrophe

Primary casualty (2)

Up to $10.0 million per occurrence

$9.0 million excess of $1.0 million

$1.0 million per occurrence

Excess casualty (3)

Up to $10.0 million per occurrence

Variable quota share

$1.5 million per occurrence except as described in note (3) below

(1)

Our property catastrophe reinsurance reduces the financial impact of a catastrophe event involving multiple claims and policyholders. Our property catastrophe reinsurance includes a reinstatement provision which requires us to pay reinstatement premiums after a loss has occurred in order to preserve coverage. Including the reinstatement provision, the maximum aggregate loss recovery limit is $90 million and is in addition to the per-occurrence coverage provided by our facultative and other treaty coverages.

(2)

Reinsurance is not applicable to any individual policy with a per occurrence limit of $1.0 million or less.

(3)

For policies with a per occurrence limit higher than $1.0 million, the quota share ceding percentage varies such that the retention is always $1.5 million or less. For example, for a $2.0 million limit excess policy, our retention would be 75%, whereas for a $10.0 million limit excess policy, our retention would be 15%. For policies for which we also write an underlying primary limit, the retention on the primary and excess policy combined would not exceed $1.5 million.

At each renewal, we consider any plans to change the underlying insurance coverage we offer, as well as updated loss activity, the level of our capital and surplus, changes in our risk appetite and the cost and availability of reinsurance treaties. In the last renewal cycle, we maintained similar retentions on most lines of business.

Reinsurance contracts do not relieve us from our obligations to policyholders. Failure of the reinsurer to honor its obligation could result in losses to us, and therefore, we establish allowances for amounts considered uncollectible. In formulating our reinsurance programs, we are selective in our choice of reinsurers and we consider numerous factors, the most important of which are the financial stability of the reinsurer, its history of responding to claims and its overall reputation. In an effort to minimize our exposure to the insolvency of our reinsurers, we review the financial condition of each reinsurer annually. In addition, we continually monitor for rating downgrades involving any of our reinsurers. At December 31, 2017, all reinsurance contracts that our insurance subsidiary was party to were either with companies with A.M. Best ratings of "A" (Excellent) or better. As of December 31, 2017, we have never had a loss for uncollectible reinsurance.

We had reinsurance recoverables on unpaid losses of$48.2 millionat December 31, 2017, and recoverables on paid losses of$1.4 millionat December 31, 2017.The following table provides a summary of our top five reinsurers, based on the net amount recoverable, at December 31, 2017:

Reinsurers

A.M. Best Rating

Reinsurance Recoverable

($ in thousands)

Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.

A+

$

22,104

Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.

A+

9,776

SCOR Reinsurance Co.

A

6,384

Arch Reinsurance Co.

A+

4,516

Odyssey America Reinsurance Corp.

A

3,452

Total for Top Five

46,232

All others

3,361

Total

$

49,593

We did not have reinsurance recoverables greater than $0.9 million at December 31, 2017 from any individual reinsurer other than the five listed above.

To reduce credit exposure to reinsurance recoverable balances, we obtain letters of credit from certain reinsurers that are not authorized as reinsurers under U.S. state insurance regulations. In addition, under the terms of our reinsurance contracts discussed above, we may retain funds due from reinsurers as security for those recoverable balances. We had funds held by the Company under the MLQS contract of$36.5 millionat December 31, 2016.Effective January 1, 2017, the Company commuted the MLQS covering the 2015 calendar year ("2015 MLQS"). The commutation reduced funds held for reinsurers by $36.5 million with a corresponding reduction to reinsurance recoverables on unpaid losses of $27.9 million and receivables from reinsurers of $8.6 million.

Catastrophe Risk Management

In addition to the reinsurance protection noted above, we use other techniques to carefully manage our exposure to catastrophe losses. We use computer models to analyze the risk of severe losses from natural catastrophes. We measure exposure to these losses in terms of probable maximum loss ("PML"), which is an estimate of the amount of loss we would expect to meet or exceed once in a given number of years (referred to as the return period). When managing our catastrophe exposure, we focus on the 100 year and the 250 year return periods. Our main catastrophe risk arises from hurricanes and earthquakes. We manage this exposure through careful and disciplined underwriting, extensive reinsurance protection purchased from financially strong counterparties and monthly catastrophe modeling of the portfolio. Additionally, we limit the concentration of property business by geographic area to reduce loss exposure from extreme events.

Reserve Development

We maintain reserves for specific claims incurred and reported, reserves for claims incurred but not reported and reserves for uncollectible reinsurance when appropriate. Our ultimate liability may be greater or less than current reserves. In the insurance industry, there is always the risk that reserves may prove inadequate. We continually monitor reserves using new information on reported claims and a variety of statistical techniques. Anticipated inflation is reflected implicitly in the reserving process through analysis of cost trends and the review of historical development. We do not discount our reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses to reflect estimated present value.

See Note 7 of the notes to consolidated financial statements and "Critical Accounting Estimates" for a discussion of estimates and assumptions related to the reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses.

Investment income is an important component of our earnings. We collect premiums from our insureds and invest a portion of these funds until claims are paid. We seek to maximize investment returns using investment guidelines that stress prudent allocation among cash and cash equivalents, fixed-maturity securities and, to a lesser extent, equity securities.

Our cash and invested assets generally consist of fixed maturity securities, short-term investments, cash and cash equivalents, exchange traded funds and preferred stock (classified as equity securities on the balance sheet). Our fixed maturity securities and equity securities are classified as "available-for-sale" and are carried at fair value with unrealized gains and losses on these securities reported, net of tax, as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). Fair value generally represents quoted market value prices for securities traded in the public market or prices analytically determined using bid or closing prices for securities not traded in the public marketplace. Short-term investments are reported at cost and include investments that are both readily convertible to known amounts of cash and have maturities of 12 months or less upon acquisition by us.

Our cash and invested assets totaled $561.1 million at December 31, 2017 and $480.3 million at December 31, 2016, and is summarized as follows:

December 31, 2017

December 31, 2016

Fair Value

% of Portfolio

Fair Value

% of Portfolio

($ in thousands)

Fixed maturities:

U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government agencies

$

9,098

1.6

%

$

12,098

2.5

%

Obligations of states, municipalities and political subdivisions

164,326

29.3

%

123,238

25.7

%

Corporate and other securities

71,631

12.8

%

118,790

24.7

%

Asset-backed securities

95,360

17.0

%

73,294

15.3

%

Residential mortgage-backed securities

84,776

15.1

%

83,803

17.4

%

Total fixed maturities

425,191

75.8

%

411,223

85.6

%

Equity securities:

Exchange traded funds

34,380

6.1

%

18,374

3.8

%

Nonredeemable preferred stock

19,752

3.5

%

—

—

Total equity securities

54,132

9.6

%

18,374

3.8

%

Cash and cash equivalents

81,747

14.6

%

50,752

10.6

%

Total

$

561,070

100.0

%

$

480,349

100.0

%

Our policy is to invest primarily in high quality fixed maturity securities with a focus on preservation of capital and a secondary focus on maximizing our risk adjusted investment returns. Investment policy is set by the Investment Committee of the Board of Directors, subject to the limits of applicable regulations. Our investment policy is designed to comply with the regulatory investment requirements and restrictions to which our insurance subsidiary is subject. Our investment portfolio is managed by an outside investment advisory firm, New England Asset Management, Inc., which operates under guidelines approved by our Investment Committee. Our Investment Committee meets periodically and reports to our Board of Directors.

Our investment policy also imposes strict requirements for credit quality, with a minimum average credit quality of the portfolio being rated "AA-" or higher by Standard & Poor's or the equivalent rating from another nationally recognized rating agency. Our investment policy also imposes restrictions on concentrations of securities by class and issuer. As of

December 31, 2017, our fixed maturity portfolio, including cash and cash equivalents, had an average duration of 3.9 years and had an average rating of "AA."

The following table sets forth the composition of our portfolio of fixed maturity securities by rating as of December 31, 2017:

AAA

AA

A

BBB

Below BBB

Total

($ in thousands)

U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. government agencies

$

—

$

9,098

$

—

$

—

$

—

$

9,098

Obligations of states, municipalities and political subdivisions

10,972

94,272

58,976

106

—

164,326

Corporate and other securities

—

6,733

42,120

15,722

7,056

71,631

Asset-backed securities

70,717

8,264

11,033

5,346

—

95,360

Residential mortgage-backed securities

3,510

71,677

—

7,541

2,048

84,776

Total fixed maturities

$

85,199

$

190,044

$

112,129

$

28,715

$

9,104

$

425,191

The fair value of our investments in fixed maturity securities at December 31, 2017, summarized by stated maturities follows:

December 31, 2017

Estimated

% of

Fair Value

Fair Value

($ in thousands)

Due in one year or less

$

49,973

11.8

%

Due after one year through five years

29,299

6.9

%

Due after five years through ten years

29,800

7.0

%

Due after ten years

135,983

32.0

%

Asset-backed securities

95,360

22.4

%

Residential mortgage-backed securities

84,776

19.9

%

Total fixed maturities

$

425,191

100.0

%

Actual maturities may differ for some securities because borrowers have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without penalties. As of December 31, 2017, our fixed maturity security portfolio contained $84.8 million (19.9%) of residential mortgage-backed securities. Residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBSs"), including collateralized mortgage obligations, are subject to prepayment risks that vary with, among other things, interest rates. During periods of declining interest rates, RMBSs generally prepay faster as the underlying mortgages are prepaid and refinanced by the borrowers in order to take advantage of the lower rates. As a result, during periods of falling interest rates, proceeds from such prepayments generally must be reinvested at lower prevailing yields. In addition, RMBSs that have an amortized cost that is greater than par (i.e., purchased at a premium) may incur a reduction in yield or a loss as a result of such prepayments. Conversely, during periods of rising interest rates, the rate of prepayments generally slows. RMBSs that have an amortized value that is less than par (i.e., purchased at a discount) may incur a decrease in yield as a result of a slower rate of prepayments. Changes in estimated cash flows due to changes in prepayment assumptions from the original purchase assumptions are revised based on current interest rates and the economic environment. Our investment policy does not permit us to own any interest only, principal only or residual tranches of RMBSs.

At December 31, 2017, our portfolio of fixed maturity securities contained corporate bonds with a fair value of $71.6 million. A summary of these securities by industry segment is shown below as of December 31, 2017:

December 31, 2017

Industry

Fair Value

% of Total

($ in thousands)

Industrials and other

$

47,950

66.9

%

Financial

20,015

28.0

%

Utilities

3,666

5.1

%

Total

$

71,631

100.0

%

Approximately 6% of our total cash and investments were invested in Vanguard exchange traded funds ("ETFs"), which provide low-cost diversification. At December 31, 2017, our ETF balance was comprised of the following funds:

December 31, 2017

Fund

Fair Value

% of Total

($ in thousands)

Domestic stock market fund

$

16,088

46.8

%

Foreign stock market fund

9,297

27.0

%

Dividend yield equity fund

8,010

23.3

%

Intermediate-term corporate bond fund

985

2.9

%

Total

$

34,380

100.0

%

Approximately4%of our total cash and investments were invested in nonredeemable preferred stock. A summary of these securities by industry segment is shown below as of December 31, 2017:

December 31, 2017

Industry

Fair Value

% of Total

($ in thousands)

Financial

$

15,859

80.3

%

Utilities

2,120

10.7

%

Industrials and other

1,773

9.0

%

Total

$

19,752

100.0

%

Competition

The P&C insurance industry is highly competitive. We compete with domestic and international insurers, some of which have greater financial, marketing and management resources and experience than we do. We may also compete with new market entrants in the future. Competition is based on many factors, including the perceived market strength of the insurer, pricing and other terms and conditions, services provided, the speed of claims payment, the reputation and experience of the insurer and ratings assigned by independent rating organizations such as A.M. Best. We currently have a rating from A.M. Best of "A-" (Excellent). Ratings for an insurance company are based on its ability to pay policyholder obligations and are not directed toward the protection of investors.

Today, our primary competitors in the E&S sector include Alleghany Corporation, Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd., James River Group Holdings, Ltd., Markel Corporation, Navigators Group Inc., RLI Corp. and W. R. Berkley Corporation.

We are regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the states in which we operate. State insurance laws and regulations generally are designed to protect the interests of policyholders, consumers and claimants rather than stockholders or other investors. The nature and extent of state regulation varies by jurisdiction, and state insurance regulators generally have broad administrative power relating to, among other matters, setting capital and surplus requirements, licensing of insurers and agents, establishing standards for reserve adequacy, prescribing statutory accounting methods and the form and content of statutory financial reports, regulating certain transactions with affiliates and prescribing types and amounts of investments.

Regulation of insurance companies constantly changes as governmental agencies and legislatures react to real or perceived issues. In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased federal scrutiny, and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that alter and, in many cases, increase, state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding company systems. Further, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners ("NAIC") and some state insurance regulators are re-examining existing laws and regulations specifically focusing on issues relating to the solvency of insurance companies, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws. Although the federal government does not directly regulate the business of insurance, federal initiatives often affect the insurance industry in a variety of ways. In addition, the Federal Insurance Office (the "FIO") was established within the U.S. Department of the Treasury by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act") in July 2010 to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, including identifying issues or gaps in the regulation of insurers that could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance industry or the U.S. financial system. See "—Federal and state legislative and regulatory changes" below.

Among the various legislative changes that state legislatures have considered and adopted is deregulation of commercial lines insurance. In some states, the deregulation of commercial lines generally enables admitted insurers to underwrite certain commercial P&C risks without the necessity of obtaining prior approval for rates and forms, although the content of policy forms is still regulated. In other states, the terms and conditions of commercial insurance policy forms have been deregulated. The deregulation of commercial lines may permit risks that would not otherwise be considered attractive by standard market carriers to be underwritten by such carriers using forms and rates that are attractive to them. In such states, competition in the E&S markets could increase.

Required licensing

Kinsale Insurance is organized and domiciled in the State of Arkansas and is authorized (licensed) in the State of Arkansas to transact certain lines of P&C insurance. This license is in good standing, and, pursuant to applicable Arkansas laws and regulations, will continue in force unless suspended, revoked or otherwise terminated, subject to certain conditions, including the payment by Kinsale Insurance of annual continuation fees, the filing of annual statutory financial statements and the filing of an annual registration statement with the Arkansas Insurance Department.

Kinsale Insurance currently operates on an excess and surplus lines basis in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. While Kinsale Insurance does not have to apply for and maintain a license in those states (with the exception of Arkansas, its domiciliary state), it is subject to maintaining suitability standards under each particular state’s surplus lines laws to be included as an eligible surplus lines carrier (as discussed below, the Dodd-Frank Act has brought uniformity to these standards (see "—Federal and state legislative and regulatory changes")). In states in which it operates on a surplus line basis, Kinsale Insurance has freedom of rate and form on the majority of its business. This means that Kinsale Insurance can implement a change in policy form, underwriting guidelines, or rates for a product without regulatory approval.

Almost all insurance is written through licensed agents and brokers. In states in which we operate on a non-admitted basis, general agents and their retail insurance brokers generally are required to certify that a certain number of licensed admitted insurers had been offered and declined to write a particular risk prior to placing that risk with us.

We operate as an insurance holding company system and are subject to the insurance holding company laws of the State of Arkansas, the state in which Kinsale Insurance is organized and domiciled. These statutes require that each insurance company in the system register with the insurance department of its state of domicile and furnish information concerning the operations of companies within the holding company system that may materially affect the operations, management or financial condition of the insurers within the system and domiciled in that state. These statutes also provide that all transactions among members of a holding company system must be fair and reasonable. Transactions between insurance subsidiaries and their parents and affiliates generally must be disclosed to the state regulators, and notice to or prior approval of the applicable state insurance regulator generally is required for any material or extraordinary transaction.

Changes of control

Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. domestic insurer, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state where the insurer is domiciled, or the acquiror must make a disclaimer of control filing with the insurance department of such state and obtain approval thereon. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the domiciliary state insurance commissioner will consider a number of factors, which include the financial strength of the proposed acquiror, the acquiror’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control.

Generally, state insurance statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, ten percent or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer. This statutory presumption of control may be rebutted by a showing that control does not exist in fact. The state regulators, however, may find that "control" exists in circumstances in which a person owns or controls less than ten percent of the voting securities of the domestic insurer.

As Kinsale Insurance is domiciled in Arkansas, the insurance laws and regulations of that state would be applicable to any proposed acquisition of control of Kinsale Insurance. Under applicable Arkansas insurance laws and regulations, no person may acquire control of a domestic insurer until written approval is obtained from the state insurance commissioner following a public hearing on the proposed acquisition. Such approval would be contingent upon the state insurance commissioner’s consideration of a number of factors, including among others, the financial strength of the proposed acquiror, the integrity and management of the acquiror’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquiror’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Arkansas insurance laws and regulations pertaining to changes of control apply to both the direct and indirect acquisition of ten percent or more of the voting stock of an Arkansas-domiciled insurer. Accordingly, the acquisition of ten percent or more of our common stock would be considered an indirect change of control of Kinsale Insurance and would trigger the applicable change of control filing requirements under Arkansas insurance laws and regulations, absent a disclaimer of control filing and its acceptance by the Arkansas Insurance Department. These requirements may discourage potential acquisition proposals and may delay, deter or prevent a change of control of us, including through transactions that some or all of our stockholders might consider to be desirable.

Restrictions on paying dividends

We are a holding company with no business operations of our own. Consequently, our ability to pay dividends to stockholders and meet our debt payment obligations is largely dependent on dividends and other distributions from our insurance subsidiary. State insurance laws restrict the ability of our insurance subsidiary to declare stockholder dividends. State insurance regulators require insurance companies to maintain specified levels of statutory capital and surplus. The maximum dividend distribution absent the approval or non-disapproval of the insurance regulatory authority in Arkansas is limited by Arkansas law to the greater of 10% of policyholder surplus as of December 31 of the previous year or net income, not including realized capital gains, for the previous calendar year. Dividend payments are further limited to that part of available policyholder surplus which is derived from net profits on an insurer’s business. The maximum amount of dividends Kinsale Insurance can pay us during 2018 without regulatory approval is $23.7 million. Insurance regulators have broad powers to prevent reduction of statutory surplus to inadequate levels, and there is no assurance that dividends of the maximum amounts calculated under any applicable formula would be permitted. State insurance regulatory

authorities that have jurisdiction over the payment of dividends by our insurance subsidiary may in the future adopt statutory provisions more restrictive than those currently in effect.

Investment regulation

Kinsale Insurance is subject to state laws which require diversification of our investment portfolios and limits on the amount of our investments in certain categories. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations would cause non-conforming investments to be treated as non-admitted assets in the states in which we are licensed to sell insurance policies for purposes of measuring statutory surplus and, in some instances, would require us to sell those investments.

Restrictions on cancellation, non-renewal or withdrawal

Many states have laws and regulations that limit the ability of an insurance company licensed by that state to exit a market. Some states prohibit an insurer from withdrawing from one or more lines of business in the state except pursuant to a plan approved by the state insurance regulator, which may disapprove a plan that may lead to market disruption. Some state statutes may explicitly or by interpretation apply these restrictions to insurers operating on a surplus lines basis.

Licensing of our employees and adjusters

In certain states in which we operate, insurance claims adjusters are required to be licensed and some must fulfill annual continuing education requirements. In most instances, our employees who are negotiating coverage terms are underwriters and employees of the Company and are not required to be licensed agents. As of December 31, 2017, 17 of our employees were required to maintain and did maintain requisite licenses for these activities in most states in which we operate.

Enterprise risk and other new developments

The NAIC, as part of its solvency modernization initiative, has engaged in a concerted effort to strengthen the ability of U.S. state insurance regulators to monitor U.S. insurance holding company groups. The NAIC’s solvency modernization initiative, among other things, aims to expand the authority and focus of state insurance regulators to encompass U.S. insurance holding company systems at the group level. The holding company reform efforts at the NAIC culminated in December 2010 in the adoption of significant amendments to the NAIC’s Insurance Holding Company System Regulatory Act (the "Model Holding Company Act") and its Insurance Holding Company System Model Regulation (the "Model Holding Company Regulation"). Among other things, the revised Model Holding Company Act and Model Holding Company Regulation explicitly address "enterprise" risk - the risk that an activity, circumstance, event or series of events involving one or more affiliates of an insurer will, if not remedied promptly, be likely to have a material adverse effect upon the financial condition or liquidity of the insurer or its insurance holding company system as a whole - and require annual reporting of potential enterprise risk as well as access to information to allow the state insurance regulator to assess such risk. In addition, the Model Holding Company Act amendments include a requirement to the effect that any person divesting control over an insurer must provide 30 days’ notice to the regulator and the insurer (with an exception for cases where a Form A is being filed). The amendments direct the domestic state insurance regulator to determine those instances in which a divesting person will be required to file for and obtain approval of the transaction.

Some form of the 2010 amendments to the Model Holding Company Act has been adopted in all states, including Arkansas. In April 2015, Arkansas adopted the principal components of the amended Model Holding Company Act. Under the Arkansas amendments, the ultimate controlling person of insurers subject to registration is required to file an annual enterprise risk report with the lead state commissioner, when applicable, of the insurance holding company system as determined by the procedures within the Financial Analysis Handbook adopted by the NAIC.

In December 2014, the NAIC adopted additional revisions to the Model Holding Company Act, updating the model to clarify the group-wide supervisor for a defined class of internationally active insurance groups. The revisions also outline the process for determining the lead state for domestic insurance groups, outline the activities the commissioner may engage in as group-wide supervisor and extend confidentiality protections to cover information received in the course of group-wide supervision. The 2014 revisions to the Model Holding Company Act have been adopted in Arkansas.

In 2012, the NAIC adopted the Risk Management and Own Risk and Solvency Assessment ("ORSA") Model Act, which requires domestic insurers to maintain a risk management framework and establishes a legal requirement for domestic

insurers to conduct an ORSA in accordance with the NAIC’s ORSA Guidance Manual. The ORSA Model Act provides that domestic insurers, or their insurance group, must regularly conduct an ORSA consistent with a process comparable to the ORSA Guidance Manual process. The ORSA Model Act also provides that, no more than once a year, an insurer’s domiciliary regulator may request that an insurer submit an ORSA summary report, or any combination of reports that together contain the information described in the ORSA Guidance Manual, with respect to the insurer and the insurance group of which it is a member. If and when the ORSA Model Act is adopted by a particular state, the ORSA Model Act would impose more extensive filing requirements on parents and other affiliates of domestic insurers. Effective July 2015, Arkansas adopted its version of the ORSA Model Act. Our subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance, will be subject to the requirements of the ORSA Model Act adopted in Arkansas when its direct written premiums and unaffiliated assumed premiums, if any, exceed $500 million (Kinsale Insurance is currently exempt from such requirements based on the amount of its direct written premiums and unaffiliated assumed premiums).

Additionally, in response to the growing threat of cyber-attacks in the insurance industry, certain jurisdictions have begun to consider new cybersecurity measures, including the adoption of cybersecurity regulations which, among other things, would require insurance companies to establish and maintain a cybersecurity program and implement and maintain cybersecurity policies and procedures. On October 24, 2017, the NAIC adopted its Insurance Data Security Model Law, intended to serve as model legislation for states to enact in order to govern cybersecurity and data protection practices of insurers, insurance agents, and other licensed entities registered under state insurance laws. The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued new regulations governing cybersecurity requirements for financial services companies, which became effective on March 1, 2017. The regulations require insurance companies, among others, licensed in New York to assess their specific cyber risk profiles and design cyber security programs to address such risks. We have filed with the DFS, on behalf of our licensees in New York, our program compliance certification pertaining to the DFS cybersecurity requirements for 2017. We are currently monitoring whether the other states in which we conduct business adopt the NAIC’s Insurance Data Security Model Law.

Federal and state legislative and regulatory changes

From time to time, various regulatory and legislative changes have been proposed in the insurance industry. Among the proposals that have in the past been or are at present being considered are the possible introduction of federal regulation in addition to, or in lieu of, the current system of state regulation of insurers and proposals in various state legislatures (some of which have been enacted) to conform portions of their insurance laws and regulations to various model acts adopted by the NAIC. As discussed above, the NAIC has undertaken a solvency modernization initiative focused on updating the U.S. insurance solvency regulation framework, including capital requirements, governance and risk management, group supervision, accounting and financial reporting and reinsurance. The 2010 and 2014 revisions to the Model Holding Company Act (discussed above), as well as the ORSA Model Act, are a result of these efforts.

The U.S. federal government’s oversight of the insurance industry was expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act. Prior to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act in July 2010, the U.S. federal government’s regulation of the insurance industry was essentially limited to certain insurance products, such as flood insurance, multi-peril crop insurance and reinsurance of losses from terrorism. As part of the overall federal financial regulatory reform package contained in the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress has legislated reforms in the reinsurance and surplus lines sectors (as discussed below).

Under reinsurance credit rules established under the Dodd-Frank Act, a U.S. ceding insurer need not satisfy the reinsurance credit rules of any nondomestic state if the following two conditions are met: (1) the ceding insurer’s domestic state is NAIC-accredited or has financial solvency requirements substantially similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation, and (2) the ceding insurer’s domestic state recognizes credit for reinsurance for its ceded risk.

The Dodd-Frank Act also incorporates the Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 ("NRRA"), which became effective on July 21, 2011. Among other things, the NRRA establishes national uniform standards on how states may regulate and tax surplus lines insurance and sets national standards concerning the regulation of reinsurance. In particular, the NRRA gives regulators in the home state of an insured exclusive authority to regulate and tax surplus lines insurance transactions, and regulators in a ceding insurer’s state of domicile the sole responsibility for regulating the balance sheet credit that the ceding insurer may take for reinsurance recoverables.

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the FIO in the U.S. Department of the Treasury and vested the FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector, monitor the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable non-health insurance products, and to represent the United States on prudential aspects of international insurance matters, including at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (the "IAIS"). In addition, the FIO serves as an advisory member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, assists the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury with administration of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, and advises the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury on important national and international insurance matters. In addition, the FIO has the ability to recommend to the Financial Stability Oversight Council the designation of an insurer as "systemically significant" and therefore subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve as a bank holding company.

In limited circumstances, the FIO can declare a state insurance law or regulation "preempted," but this can be done only after extensive consultation with state insurance regulators, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and key insurance industry players (in trade associations representing insurers and intermediaries). Additionally, the FIO must publish a notice regarding the basis for the preemption in the Federal Register, allowing a reasonable opportunity for comments. The FIO cannot preempt state antitrust laws governing rate making, underwriting, sales practices or coverage requirements. No later than September 30th of each year, the FIO must submit an annual report to Congress explaining any use of the preemption authority during the prior year.

In addition, a number of federal laws affect and apply to the insurance industry, including various privacy laws and the economic and trade sanctions implemented by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. OFAC maintains and enforces economic sanctions against certain foreign countries and groups and prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in certain transactions with certain persons or entities. OFAC has imposed civil penalties on persons, including insurance and reinsurance companies, arising from violations of its economic sanctions program.

On December 12, 2013, the FIO submitted a report to Congress as required under the Dodd-Frank Act on improving U.S. insurance regulation (the "Modernization Report"). The Modernization Report concludes that the federal government should continue its involvement in insurance regulation, emphasizing the need for improved uniformity and efficiency in the U.S. insurance regulatory system, but that the current "hybrid" state and federal regulatory system should remain in place. The Modernization Report also recommends certain steps that should be taken to modernize and improve the U.S. insurance regulatory system through a combination of actions to be taken by the state and federal governments. Many of the recommendations in the Modernization Report are subject to NAIC initiatives. As the FIO does not have regulatory authority, the recommendations in its report could be viewed as advisory in nature. Most suggestions for U.S. federal standards and involvement in insurance regulation would require U.S. Congressional action. Whether many of the recommendations will be implemented, altered considerably, or delayed for an extended period is still uncertain. In its 2017 Annual Report on the Insurance Industry released on September 22, 2017, the FIO continued to highlight perceived shortcomings in the state-based insurance regulatory system, particularly concerns regarding the cyber insurance market, and advocate for improved uniformity across a number of insurance regulatory issues; however, the U.S. Department of Treasury also endorsed the state-based regulatory model for the U.S. insurance industry and recommended narrowing the scope of federal involvement in publications issued in 2017 (including the report issued on October 26, 2017, pursuant to an executive order of President Trump, examining the regulatory framework for asset management and insurance industries).

On November 20, 2015, the FIO and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced their intention to exercise their authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to negotiate a “covered agreement” with the European Union (the “Covered Agreement”). After a number of private negotiating sessions, on January 13, 2017, the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative notified Congress that they had completed negotiations with the European Union for the Covered Agreement, which addressed reinsurance, insurance group supervision and the exchange of information between insurance supervisors. The Covered Agreement was formally entered into on September 22, 2017.

With respect to reinsurance, under the Covered Agreement, both the U.S. and the European Union agreed that their supervisory authorities will not impose reinsurance collateral requirements or "local presence" requirements on a reinsurer domiciled in (or with a head office in) the other’s territory that are less favorable than collateral or local presence requirements applied to a domestic reinsurer. However, the collateral or local presence provisions apply only if the insurer or reinsurer satisfies certain conditions and standards, including among others, minimum capital and risk-based capital,

confirmation of financial condition by the reinsurer’s domestic regulator and claims payment standards. U.S. states have five years from execution of the Covered Agreement to adopt reinsurance reforms removing collateral requirements for European Union reinsurers that meet the prescribed conditions in the Covered Agreement. If the FIO determines that state laws are inconsistent with the Covered Agreement (the process of making potential preemption determinations will begin 42 months following execution of the Covered Agreement), such states laws may be preempted.

Trade practices

The manner in which insurance companies and insurance agents and brokers conduct the business of insurance is regulated by state statutes in an effort to prohibit practices that constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Prohibited practices include, but are not limited to, disseminating false information or advertising, unfair discrimination, rebating and false statements. We set business conduct policies and provide training to make our employee-agents and other sales personnel aware of these prohibitions, and we require them to conduct their activities in compliance with these statutes.

Unfair claims practices

Generally, insurance companies, adjusting companies and individual claims adjusters are prohibited by state statutes from engaging in unfair claims practices on a flagrant basis or with such frequency to indicate a general business practice. Unfair claims practices include, but are not limited to, misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions; failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies; and attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed such person was entitled. We set business conduct policies and conduct training to make our employee-adjusters and other claims personnel aware of these prohibitions, and we require them to conduct their activities in compliance with these statutes.

Credit for reinsurance

State insurance laws permit U.S. insurance companies, as ceding insurers, to take financial statement credit for reinsurance that is ceded, so long as the assuming reinsurer satisfies the state’s credit for reinsurance laws. The NRRA contained in the Dodd-Frank Act provides that if the state of domicile of a ceding insurer is an NAIC accredited state, or has financial solvency requirements substantially similar to the requirements necessary for NAIC accreditation, and recognizes credit for reinsurance for the insurer’s ceded risk, then no other state may deny such credit for reinsurance. Because all states are currently accredited by the NAIC, the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a state in which a U.S. ceding insurer is licensed but not domiciled from denying credit for reinsurance for the insurer’s ceded risk if the cedant’s domestic state regulator recognizes credit for reinsurance. The ceding company in this instance is permitted to reflect in its statutory financial statements a credit in an aggregate amount equal to the ceding company’s liability for unearned premium (which are that portion of written premiums which applies to the unexpired portion of the policy period), loss reserves and loss expense reserves to the extent ceded to the reinsurer.

Periodic financial and market conduct examinations

The insurance regulatory authority in the State of Arkansas, our insurance subsidiary’s state of domicile, conducts on-site visits and examinations of the affairs of our insurance subsidiary, including its financial condition, its relationships and transactions with affiliates and its dealings with policyholders, every three to five years, and may conduct special or targeted examinations to address particular concerns or issues at any time. Insurance regulators of other states in which we do business also may conduct examinations. The results of these examinations can give rise to regulatory orders requiring remedial, injunctive or other corrective action. Insurance regulatory authorities have broad administrative powers to regulate trade practices and in that connection to restrict or rescind licenses to transact business and to levy fines and monetary penalties against insurers and insurance agents and brokers found to be in violation of applicable laws and regulations.

Risk-based capital

Risk-based capital ("RBC") laws are designed to assess the minimum amount of capital that an insurance company needs to support its overall business operations and to ensure that it has an acceptably low expectation of becoming financially

impaired. State insurance regulators use RBC to set capital requirements, considering the size and degree of risk taken by the insurer and taking into account various risk factors including asset risk, credit risk, underwriting risk and interest rate risk. As the ratio of an insurer’s total adjusted capital and surplus decreases relative to its risk-based capital, the RBC laws provide for increasing levels of regulatory intervention culminating with mandatory control of the operations of the insurer by the domiciliary insurance department at the so-called mandatory control level.

The Arkansas Insurance Department has largely adopted the model legislation promulgated by the NAIC pertaining to RBC, and requires annual reporting by Arkansas-domiciled insurers to confirm that the minimum amount of RBC necessary for an insurer to support its overall business operations has been met. Arkansas-domiciled insurers falling below a calculated threshold may be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action, including supervision, rehabilitation or liquidation by the Arkansas Insurance Department. Failure to maintain our risk-based capital at the required levels could adversely affect the ability of Kinsale Insurance to maintain the regulatory authority necessary to conduct our business. However, as of December 31, 2017, Kinsale Insurance maintained RBC levels significantly in excess of amounts that would require any corrective actions.

IRIS ratios

The NAIC Insurance Regulatory Information System, or IRIS, is part of a collection of analytical tools designed to provide state insurance regulators with an integrated approach to screening and analyzing the financial condition of insurance companies operating in their respective states. IRIS is intended to assist state insurance regulators in targeting resources to those insurers in greatest need of regulatory attention. IRIS consists of two phases: statistical and analytical. In the statistical phase, the NAIC database generates key financial ratio results based on financial information obtained from insurers’ annual statutory statements. The analytical phase is a review of the annual statements, financial ratios and other automated solvency tools. The primary goal of the analytical phase is to identify companies that appear to require immediate regulatory attention. A ratio result falling outside the usual range of IRIS ratios is not considered a failing result; rather, unusual values are viewed as part of the regulatory early monitoring system. Furthermore, in some years, it may not be unusual for financially sound companies to have several ratios with results outside the usual ranges. An insurance company may fall out of the usual range for one or more ratios because of specific transactions that are in themselves immaterial.

Ratings

A.M. Best, which rates insurance companies based on factors of concern to policyholders, rates our insurance subsidiary. Our insurance subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance, has a rating of "A-" (Excellent) from A.M. Best. A.M. Best currently assigns 16 ratings to insurance companies, which currently range from "A++" (Superior) to "S" (Rating Suspended). "A-" (Excellent) is the fourth highest rating. In evaluating a company's financial and operating performance, A.M. Best reviews the company's profitability, leverage and liquidity, as well as its book of business, the adequacy and soundness of its reinsurance, the quality and estimated market value of its assets, the adequacy of its loss and loss expense reserves, the adequacy of its surplus, its capital structure, the experience and competence of its management and its market presence. A.M. Best's ratings reflect its opinion of an insurance company's financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders. These evaluations are not directed to purchasers of an insurance company's securities.

Employees

As of February 23, 2018, we had 164 employees, all of whom were employed by us through arrangements with Kinsale Management, Inc. Our employees are not subject to any collective bargaining agreements, and we are not aware of any current efforts to implement such an agreement.

Available Information

We file annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and other information with the SEC. Members of the public may read and copy materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Members of the public may also obtain information on the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-732-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet web site that

contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers, including us, that file electronically with the SEC. The address of that site is http://www.sec.gov. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K and other information filed by us with the SEC are available, without charge, on our Internet web site, http://www.kinsalecapitalgroup.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed electronically with the SEC. Copies are also available, without charge, by writing to us at Kinsale Capital Group, Inc., 2221 Edward Holland Drive, Suite 600, Richmond, VA 23230. The information on our website is not a part of this Annual Report.

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of which we currently are unaware or currently believe to be immaterial. The occurrence of any of these risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business and Our Industry

Our loss reserves may be inadequate to cover our actual losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our success depends on our ability to accurately assess the risks related to the businesses and people that we insure. We establish loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for the ultimate payment of all claims that have been incurred, and the related costs of adjusting those claims, as of the date of our financial statements. Reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability. Rather, reserves represent an estimate of what we expect the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost us, and our ultimate liability may be greater or less than our estimate.

As part of the reserving process, we review historical data and consider the impact of such factors as:

•

claims inflation, which is the sustained increase in cost of raw materials, labor, medical services and other components of claims cost;

•

claims development patterns by line of business and by "claims made" versus "occurrence" policies;

•

legislative activity;

•

social and economic patterns; and

•

litigation, judicial and regulatory trends.

These variables are affected by both internal and external events that could increase our exposure to losses, and we continually monitor our reserves using new information on reported claims and a variety of statistical techniques. This process assumes that past experience, adjusted for the effects of current developments and anticipated trends, is an appropriate basis for predicting future events. There is, however, no precise method for evaluating the impact of any specific factor on the adequacy of reserves, and actual results may deviate, perhaps substantially, from our reserve estimates. For instance, the following uncertainties may have an impact on the adequacy of our resources:

•

When we write "occurrence" policies, we are obligated to pay covered claims, up to the contractually agreed amount, for any covered loss that occurs while the policy is in force. Accordingly, claims may arise many years after a policy has lapsed. Approximately 81.2% of our net casualty loss reserves were associated with "occurrence" policies as of December 31, 2017.

•

Even when a claim is received (irrespective of whether the policy is a "claims made" or "occurrence" basis form), it may take considerable time to fully appreciate the extent of the covered loss suffered by the insured and, consequently, estimates of loss associated with specific claims can increase over time.

•

New theories of liability are enforced retroactively from time to time by courts. See also "—The failure of any of the loss limitations or exclusions we employ, or changes in other claims or coverage issues, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations."

•

Volatility in the financial markets, economic events and other external factors may result in an increase in the number of claims and/or severity of the claims reported. In addition, elevated inflationary conditions would, among other things, cause loss costs to increase. See also "—Adverse economic factors, including recession, inflation, periods of high unemployment or lower economic activity could result in the sale of fewer policies than expected or an increase in frequency or severity of claims and premium defaults or both, which, in turn, could affect our growth and profitability."

If claims were to become more frequent, even if we had no liability for those claims, the cost of evaluating such potential claims could escalate beyond the amount of the reserves we have established. As we enter new lines of business, or as a result of new theories of claims, we may encounter an increase in claims frequency and greater claims handling costs than we had anticipated.

In addition, there may be significant reporting lags between the occurrence of the insured event and the time it is actually reported to us and additional lags between the time of reporting and final settlement of any claims. Consequently, estimates of loss associated with specified claims can increase as new information emerges, which could cause the reserves for the claim to become inadequate.

If any of our reserves should prove to be inadequate, we will be required to increase our reserves resulting in a reduction in our net income and stockholders’ equity in the period in which the deficiency is identified. Future loss experience substantially in excess of established reserves could also have a material adverse effect on our future earnings and liquidity and our financial rating.

For further discussion of our reserve experience, please see "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Estimates — Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses."

Given the inherent uncertainty of models, the usefulness of such models as a tool to evaluate risk is subject to a high degree of uncertainty that could result in actual losses that are materially different than our estimates, including PMLs. A deviation from our loss estimates may adversely impact, perhaps significantly, our financial results.

Our approach to risk management relies on subjective variables that entail significant uncertainties. For example, we rely heavily on estimates of PMLs for certain events that are generated by computer-run models. In addition, we rely on historical data and scenarios in managing credit and interest rate risks in our investment portfolio. These estimates, models, data and scenarios may not produce accurate predictions and consequently, we could incur losses both in the risks we underwrite and to the value of our investment portfolio.

We use third-party vendor analytic and modeling capabilities to provide us with objective risk assessment relating to other risks in our reinsurance portfolio. We use these models to help us control risk accumulation, inform management and other stakeholders of capital requirements and to improve the risk/return profile or minimize the amount of capital required to cover the risks in each of our reinsurance contracts. However, given the inherent uncertainty of modeling techniques and the application of such techniques, these models and databases may not accurately address a variety of matters which might impact certain of our coverages.

Small changes in assumptions, which depend heavily on our judgment and foresight, can have a significant impact on the modeled outputs. For example, catastrophe models that simulate loss estimates based on a set of assumptions are important tools used by us to estimate our PMLs. These assumptions address a number of factors that impact loss potential including, but not limited to, the characteristics of a given natural catastrophe event; the increase in claim costs resulting from limited supply of labor and materials needed for repairs following a catastrophe event (demand surge); the types, function, location and characteristics of exposed risks; susceptibility of exposed risks to damage from an event with specific characteristics; and the financial and contractual provisions of the (re)insurance contracts that cover losses arising from an event. We run many model simulations in order to understand the impact of these assumptions on a catastrophe’s loss potential. Furthermore, there are risks associated with catastrophe events, which are either poorly represented or not represented at all by catastrophe models. Each modeling assumption or un-modeled risk introduces uncertainty into PML estimates that management must consider. These uncertainties can include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

The models do not address all the possible hazard characteristics of a catastrophe peril (e.g. the precise path and wind speed of a hurricane);

•

The models may not accurately reflect the true frequency of events;

•

The models may not accurately reflect a risk's vulnerability or susceptibility to damage for a given event characteristic;

•

The models may not accurately represent loss potential to insurance or reinsurance contract coverage limits, terms

The models may not accurately reflect the impact on the economy of the area affected or the financial, judicial, political, or regulatory impact on insurance claim payments during or following a catastrophe event.

Our PMLs are reviewed by management after the assessment of outputs from multiple third party vendor models and other qualitative and quantitative assessments, including exposures not typically modeled in vendor models. Our methodology for estimating PMLs may differ from methods used by other companies and external parties given the various assumptions and judgments required to estimate a PML.

As a result of these factors and contingencies, our reliance on assumptions and data used to evaluate our entire reinsurance portfolio and specifically to estimate a PML is subject to a high degree of uncertainty that could result in actual losses that are materially different from our PML estimates and our financial results could be adversely affected.

Adverse economic factors, including recession, inflation, periods of high unemployment or lower economic activity could result in the sale of fewer policies than expected or an increase in frequency or severity of claims and premium defaults or both, which, in turn, could affect our growth and profitability.

Factors, such as business revenue, economic conditions, the volatility and strength of the capital markets and inflation can affect the business and economic environment. These same factors affect our ability to generate revenue and profits. In an economic downturn that is characterized by higher unemployment, declining spending and reduced corporate revenues, the demand for insurance products is generally adversely affected, which directly affects our premium levels and profitability. Negative economic factors may also affect our ability to receive the appropriate rate for the risk we insure with our policyholders and may adversely affect the number of policies we can write, including with respect to our opportunities to underwrite profitable business. In an economic downturn, our customers may have less need for insurance coverage, cancel existing insurance policies, modify their coverage or not renew the policies they hold with us. Existing policyholders may exaggerate or even falsify claims to obtain higher claims payments. These outcomes would reduce our underwriting profit to the extent these factors are not reflected in the rates we charge.

We underwrite a significant portion of our insurance in California, Texas and Florida. Any economic downturn in any such state could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A decline in our financial strength rating may adversely affect the amount of business we write.

Participants in the insurance industry use ratings from independent ratings agencies, such as A.M. Best, as an important means of assessing the financial strength and quality of insurers. In setting its ratings, A.M. Best uses a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a company’s balance sheet strength, operating performance and business profile. This analysis includes comparisons to peers and industry standards as well as assessments of operating plans, philosophy and management. A.M. Best financial strength ratings range from "A++" (Superior) to "F" for insurance companies that have been publicly placed in liquidation. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, A.M. Best has assigned a financial strength rating of "A-" (Excellent) to our operating subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance. A.M. Best assigns ratings that are intended to provide an independent opinion of an insurance company’s ability to meet its obligations to policyholders and such ratings are not evaluations directed to investors and are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold our common stock or any other securities we may issue. A.M. Best periodically reviews our financial strength rating and may revise it downward or revoke it at its sole discretion based primarily on its analysis of our balance sheet strength (including capital adequacy and loss adjustment expense reserve adequacy), operating performance and business profile. Factors that could affect such analysis include but are not limited to:

•

if we change our business practices from our organizational business plan in a manner that no longer supports A.M. Best’s rating;

if we are unable to retain our senior management or other key personnel;

•

if our investment portfolio incurs significant losses; or

•

if A.M. Best alters its capital adequacy assessment methodology in a manner that would adversely affect our rating.

These and other factors could result in a downgrade of our financial strength rating. A downgrade or withdrawal of our rating could result in any of the following consequences, among others:

•

causing our current and future brokers and insureds to choose other, more highly-rated competitors;

•

increasing the cost or reducing the availability of reinsurance to us; or

•

severely limiting or preventing us from writing new and renewal insurance contracts.

In addition, in view of the earnings and capital pressures recently experienced by many financial institutions, including insurance companies, it is possible that rating organizations will heighten the level of scrutiny that they apply to such institutions, will increase the frequency and scope of their credit reviews, will request additional information from the companies that they rate or will increase the capital and other requirements employed in the rating organizations’ models for maintenance of certain ratings levels. We can offer no assurance that our rating will remain at its current level. It is possible that such reviews of us may result in adverse ratings consequences, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more key executives or by an inability to attract and retain qualified personnel.

We depend on our ability to attract and retain experienced personnel and seasoned key executives who are knowledgeable about our business. The pool of talent from which we actively recruit is limited and may fluctuate based on market dynamics specific to our industry and independent of overall economic conditions. As such, higher demand for employees having the desired skills and expertise could lead to increased compensation expectations for existing and prospective personnel, making it difficult for us to retain and recruit key personnel and maintain labor costs at desired levels. Only our Chief Executive Officer has an employment agreement with us and is subject to a non-compete agreement. Should any of our key executives terminate their employment with us, or if we are unable to retain and attract talented personnel, we may be unable to maintain our current competitive position in the specialized markets in which we operate, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We rely on a select group of brokers, and such relationships may not continue.

We distribute the majority of our products through a select group of brokers. Of our 2017 gross written premiums, 46.3%, or $103.3 million, were distributed through five of our approximately 153 brokers, three of which accounting for 33.1%, or $73.9 million, of our 2017 gross written premiums.

Our relationship with any of these brokers may be discontinued at any time. Even if the relationships do continue, they may not be on terms that are profitable for us. The termination of a relationship with one or more significant brokers could result in lower gross written premiums and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or business prospects.

The failure of any of the loss limitations or exclusions we employ, or changes in other claims or coverage issues, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Although we seek to mitigate our loss exposure through a variety of methods, the future is inherently unpredictable. It is difficult to predict the timing, frequency and severity of losses with statistical certainty. It is not possible to completely eliminate our exposure to unforecasted or unpredictable events and, to the extent that losses from such risks occur, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

For instance, various provisions of our policies, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum, which have been negotiated to limit our risks, may not be enforceable in the manner we intend. At the present time, we employ a

variety of endorsements to our policies that limit exposure to known risks. As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge.

In addition, we design our policy terms to manage our exposure to expanding theories of legal liability like those which have given rise to claims for lead paint, asbestos, mold, construction defects and environmental matters. Many of the policies we issue also include conditions requiring the prompt reporting of claims to us and entitle us to decline coverage in the event of a violation of those conditions. Also, many of our policies limit the period during which a policyholder may bring a claim under the policy, which in many cases is shorter than the statutory period under which such claims can be brought against our policyholders. While these exclusions and limitations help us assess and reduce our loss exposure and help eliminate known exposures to certain risks, it is possible that a court or regulatory authority could nullify or void an exclusion or legislation could be enacted modifying or barring the use of such endorsements and limitations. These types of governmental actions could result in higher than anticipated losses and loss adjustment expenses, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. Three examples of unanticipated risks that have adversely affected the insurance industry are:

•

Asbestos liability applied to manufacturers of products and contractors who installed those products.

•

Apportionment of liability arising from subsidence claims assigned to subcontractors who may have been involved in mundane tasks (such as installing sheetrock in a home).

•

Court decisions, such as the 1995 Montrose decision in California, that read policy exclusions narrowly so as to expand coverage, thereby requiring insurers to create and write new exclusions.

These issues may adversely affect our business by either broadening coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances, these changes may not become apparent until sometime after we have issued insurance contracts that are affected by the changes. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance contracts may not be known for many years after a contract is issued.

Performance of our investment portfolio is subject to a variety of investment risks that may adversely affect our financial results.

Our results of operations depend, in part, on the performance of our investment portfolio. We seek to hold a high-quality, diversified portfolio of investments that is managed by professional investment advisory management firms in accordance with our investment policy and routinely reviewed by our Investment Committee. However, our investments are subject to general economic conditions and market risks as well as risks inherent to particular securities.

Our primary market risk exposures are to changes in interest rates and equity prices. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation — Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk." In recent years, interest rates have been at or near historic lows. A protracted low interest rate environment would continue to place pressure on our net investment income, particularly as it relates to fixed income securities and short-term investments, which, in turn, may adversely affect our operating results. Future increases in interest rates could cause the values of our fixed income securities portfolios to decline, with the magnitude of the decline depending on the duration of securities included in our portfolio and the amount by which interest rates increase. Some fixed income securities have call or prepayment options, which create possible reinvestment risk in declining rate environments. Other fixed income securities, such as mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities, carry prepayment risk or, in a rising interest rate environment, may not prepay as quickly as expected.

The value of our investment portfolio is subject to the risk that certain investments may default or become impaired due to deterioration in the financial condition of one or more issuers of the securities we hold, or due to deterioration in the financial condition of an insurer that guarantees an issuer’s payments on such investments. Downgrades in the credit ratings of fixed maturities also have a significant negative effect on the market valuation of such securities.

Such factors could reduce our net investment income and result in realized investment losses. Our investment portfolio is subject to increased valuation uncertainties when investment markets are illiquid. The valuation of investments is more

subjective when markets are illiquid, thereby increasing the risk that the estimated fair value (i.e., the carrying amount) of the securities we hold in our portfolio does not reflect prices at which actual transactions would occur.

We also invest in marketable equity securities. These securities are carried on the balance sheet at fair value and are subject to potential losses and declines in value, which may never recover. Our equity invested assets totaled $54.1 million as of December 31, 2017.

Risks for all types of securities are managed through the application of our investment policy, which establishes investment parameters that include but are not limited to, maximum percentages of investment in certain types of securities and minimum levels of credit quality, which we believe are within applicable guidelines established by the NAIC and the Arkansas State Insurance Department.

Although we seek to preserve our capital, we cannot be certain that our investment objectives will be achieved, and results may vary substantially over time. In addition, although we seek to employ investment strategies that are not correlated with our insurance and reinsurance exposures, losses in our investment portfolio may occur at the same time as underwriting losses and, therefore, exacerbate the adverse effect of the losses on us.

Our E&S insurance operations are subject to increased risk from changing market conditions and our business is cyclical in nature, which may affect our financial performance.

E&S insurance covers risks that are typically more complex and unusual than standard risks and require a high degree of specialized underwriting. As a result, E&S risks do not often fit the underwriting criteria of standard insurance carriers, and are generally considered higher risk than those covered in the standard market. If our underwriting staff inadequately judges and prices the risks associated with the business underwritten in the E&S market, our financial results could be adversely impacted.

Historically, the financial performance of the P&C insurance industry has tended to fluctuate in cyclical periods of price competition and excess capacity (known as a soft market) followed by periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity (known as a hard market). Soft markets occur when the supply of insurance capital in a given market or territory is greater than the amount of insurance coverage demanded by all potential insureds in that market. When this occurs, insurance prices tend to decline and policy terms and conditions become more favorable to the insureds. Conversely, hard markets occur when there is not enough insurance capital capacity in the market to meet the needs of potential insureds, causing insurance prices to generally rise and policy terms and conditions to become more favorable to the insurers.

Although an individual insurance company's financial performance depends on its own specific business characteristics, the profitability of most P&C insurance companies tends to follow this cyclical market pattern. Further, this cyclical market pattern can be more pronounced in the E&S market than in the standard insurance market. When the standard insurance market hardens, the E&S market hardens, and growth in the E&S market can be significantly more rapid than growth in the standard insurance market. Similarly, when conditions begin to soften, many customers that were previously driven into the E&S market may return to the admitted market, exacerbating the effects of rate decreases. We cannot predict the timing or duration of changes in the market cycle because the cyclicality is due in large part to the actions of our competitors and general economic factors. These cyclical patterns cause our revenues and net income to fluctuate, which may cause the price of our common stock to be volatile.

We are subject to extensive regulation, which may adversely affect our ability to achieve our business objectives. In addition, if we fail to comply with these regulations, we may be subject to penalties, including fines and suspensions, which may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our insurance subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance, is subject to extensive regulation in Arkansas, its state of domicile, and to a lesser degree, the other states in which it operates. Most insurance regulations are designed to protect the interests of insurance policyholders, as opposed to the interests of investors or stockholders. These regulations generally are administered by a department of insurance in each state and relate to, among other things, authorizations to write E&S lines of business, capital and surplus requirements, investment and underwriting limitations, affiliate transactions, dividend limitations, changes in control, solvency and a variety of other financial and non-financial aspects of our business. Significant changes in these laws and regulations could further limit our discretion or make it more expensive to

conduct our business. State insurance regulators also conduct periodic examinations of the affairs of insurance companies and require the filing of annual and other reports relating to financial condition, holding company issues and other matters. These regulatory requirements may impose timing and expense constraints that could adversely affect our ability to achieve some or all of our business objectives.

In addition, state insurance regulators have broad discretion to deny or revoke licenses for various reasons, including the violation of regulations. In some instances, where there is uncertainty as to applicability, we follow practices based on our interpretations of regulations or practices that we believe generally to be followed by the industry. These practices may turn out to be different from the interpretations of regulatory authorities. If we do not have the requisite licenses and approvals or do not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, state insurance regulators could preclude or temporarily suspend us from carrying on some or all of our activities or could otherwise penalize us. This could adversely affect our ability to operate our business. Further, changes in the level of regulation of the insurance industry or changes in laws or regulations themselves or interpretations by regulatory authorities could interfere with our operations and require us to bear additional costs of compliance, which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business.

The NAIC has adopted a system to test the adequacy of statutory capital of insurance companies, known as "risk-based capital." This system establishes the minimum amount of risk-based capital necessary for a company to support its overall business operations. It identifies P&C insurers that may be inadequately capitalized by looking at certain inherent risks of each insurer's assets and liabilities and its mix of net written premiums. Insurers falling below a calculated threshold may be subject to varying degrees of regulatory action, including supervision, rehabilitation or liquidation. Failure to maintain our risk-based capital at the required levels could adversely affect the ability of our insurance subsidiary to maintain regulatory authority to conduct our business. See also "Regulation — Required licensing."

Because we are a holding company and substantially all of our operations are conducted by our insurance subsidiary, our ability to pay dividends depends on our ability to obtain cash dividends or other permitted payments from our insurance subsidiary.

Because we are a holding company with no business operations of our own, our ability to pay dividends to stockholders largely depends on dividends and other distributions from our insurance subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance. State insurance laws, including the laws of Arkansas, restrict the ability of Kinsale Insurance to declare stockholder dividends. State insurance regulators require insurance companies to maintain specified levels of statutory capital and surplus. Consequently, the maximum dividend distribution is limited by Arkansas law to the greater of 10% of policyholder surplus as of December 31 of the previous year or net income, not including realized capital gains, for the previous calendar year. Dividend payments are further limited to that part of available policyholder surplus which is derived from net profits on our business. The maximum amount of dividends Kinsale Insurance could pay us during 2018 without regulatory approval is $23.7 million. State insurance regulators have broad powers to prevent the reduction of statutory surplus to inadequate levels, and there is no assurance that dividends up to the maximum amounts calculated under any applicable formula would be permitted. Moreover, state insurance regulators that have jurisdiction over the payment of dividends by our insurance subsidiary may in the future adopt statutory provisions more restrictive than those currently in effect.

The declaration and payment of future dividends to holders of our common stock will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on many factors. See "Dividend Policy."

We could be forced to sell investments to meet our liquidity requirements.

We invest the premiums we receive from our insureds until they are needed to pay policyholder claims. Consequently, we seek to manage the duration of our investment portfolio based on the duration of our loss and loss adjustment expense reserves to ensure sufficient liquidity and avoid having to liquidate investments to fund claims. Risks such as inadequate loss and loss adjustment reserves or unfavorable trends in litigation could potentially result in the need to sell investments to fund these liabilities. We may not be able to sell our investments at favorable prices or at all. Sales could result in significant realized losses depending on the conditions of the general market, interest rates and credit issues with individual securities.

We may be unable to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable prices or on terms that adequately protect us.

We use reinsurance to help manage our exposure to insurance risks. Reinsurance is a practice whereby one insurer, called the reinsurer, agrees to indemnify another insurer, called the ceding insurer, for all or part of the potential liability arising from one or more insurance policies issued by the ceding insurer. The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity, which can affect our business volume and profitability. In addition, reinsurance programs are generally subject to renewal on an annual basis. We may not be able to obtain reinsurance on acceptable terms or from entities with satisfactory creditworthiness. If we are unable to obtain new reinsurance facilities or to renew expiring facilities, our net exposures would increase. In such event, if we are unwilling to bear an increase in our net exposure, we would have to reduce the level of our underwriting commitments, which would reduce our revenues.

Many reinsurance companies have begun to exclude certain coverages from, or alter terms in, the reinsurance contracts we enter into with them. Some exclusions are with respect to risks that we cannot exclude in policies we write due to business or regulatory constraints. In addition, reinsurers are imposing terms, such as lower per occurrence and aggregate limits, on direct insurers that do not wholly cover the risks written by these direct insurers. As a result, we, like other direct insurance companies, write insurance policies which to some extent do not have the benefit of reinsurance protection. These gaps in reinsurance protection expose us to greater risk and greater potential losses. For example, certain reinsurers have excluded coverage for terrorist acts or priced such coverage at rates higher than the underlying risk. Many direct insurers, including us, have written policies without terrorist act exclusions and in many cases we cannot exclude terrorist acts because of regulatory constraints. We may, therefore, be exposed to potential losses as a result of terrorist acts. See also "Business — Reinsurance."

Our employees could take excessive risks, which could negatively affect our financial condition and business.

As an insurance enterprise, we are in the business of binding certain risks. The employees who conduct our business, including executive officers and other members of management, underwriters, product managers and other employees, do so in part by making decisions and choices that involve exposing us to risk. These include decisions such as setting underwriting guidelines and standards, product design and pricing, determining which business opportunities to pursue and other decisions. We endeavor, in the design and implementation of our compensation programs and practices, to avoid giving our employees incentives to take excessive risks. Employees may, however, take such risks regardless of the structure of our compensation programs and practices. Similarly, although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor employees’ business decisions and prevent them from taking excessive risks, these controls and procedures may not be effective. If our employees take excessive risks, the impact of those risks could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and business operations.

Severe weather conditions and other catastrophes may result in an increase in the number and amount of claims filed against us.

Our business is exposed to the risk of severe weather conditions and other catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including natural events such as severe winter weather, tornadoes, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, severe thunderstorms and fires, and other events such as explosions, terrorist attacks and riots. The incidence and severity of catastrophes and severe weather conditions are inherently unpredictable. The extent of losses from catastrophes is a function of the total amount of losses incurred, the number of insureds affected, the frequency and severity of the events, the effectiveness of our catastrophe risk management program and the adequacy of our reinsurance coverage. Insurance companies are not permitted to reserve for a catastrophe until it has occurred. Severe weather conditions and catastrophes can cause losses in our property lines and generally result in both an increase in the number of claims incurred and an increase in the dollar amount of each claim asserted, which might require us to increase our reserves, causing our liquidity and financial condition to deteriorate. In addition, our inability to obtain reinsurance coverage at reasonable rates and in amounts adequate to mitigate the risks associated with severe weather conditions and other catastrophes could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

We intend to grow our business in the future, which could require additional capital, systems development and skilled personnel. However, we must be able to meet our capital needs, expand our systems and our internal controls effectively, allocate our human resources optimally, identify and hire qualified employees or effectively incorporate the components of any businesses we may acquire in our effort to achieve growth. The failure to manage our growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Competition for business in our industry is intense.

We face competition from other specialty insurance companies, standard insurance companies and underwriting agencies, as well as from diversified financial services companies that are larger than we are and that have greater financial, marketing and other resources than we do. Some of these competitors also have longer experience and more market recognition than we do in certain lines of business. In addition, it may be difficult or prohibitively expensive for us to implement technology systems and processes that are competitive with the systems and processes of these larger companies.

In particular, competition in the insurance industry is based on many factors, including price of coverage, the general reputation and perceived financial strength of the company, relationships with brokers, terms and conditions of products offered, ratings assigned by independent rating agencies, speed of claims payment and reputation, and the experience and reputation of the members of our underwriting team in the particular lines of insurance and reinsurance we seek to underwrite. See "Business — Competition." In recent years, the insurance industry has undergone increasing consolidation, which may further increase competition.

A number of new, proposed or potential legislative or industry developments could further increase competition in our industry. These developments include:

•

An increase in capital-raising by companies in our lines of business, which could result in new entrants to our markets and an excess of capital in the industry;

•

The deregulation of commercial insurance lines in certain states and the possibility of federal regulatory reform of the insurance industry, which could increase competition from standard carriers; and

•

Changing practices caused by the internet, including shifts in the way in which E&S insurance is purchased. We currently depend largely on the wholesale distribution model. If the wholesale distribution model were to be significantly altered by changes in the way E&S insurance were marketed, including, without limitation, through use of the Internet, it could have a material adverse effect on our premiums, underwriting results and profits.

We may not be able to continue to compete successfully in the insurance markets. Increased competition in these markets could result in a change in the supply and demand for insurance, affect our ability to price our products at risk-adequate rates and retain existing business, or underwrite new business on favorable terms. If this increased competition so limits our ability to transact business, our operating results could be adversely affected.

The effects of litigation on our business are uncertain and could have an adverse effect on our business.

As is typical in our industry, we continually face risks associated with litigation of various types, including disputes relating to insurance claims under our policies as well as other general commercial and corporate litigation. Although we are not currently involved in any material litigation with our customers, other members of the insurance industry are the target of class action lawsuits and other types of litigation, some of which involve claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts, and the outcomes of which are unpredictable. This litigation is based on a variety of issues, including insurance and claim settlement practices. We cannot predict with any certainty whether we will be involved in such litigation in the future or what impact such litigation would have on our business.

We may be unable to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal controls. In addition, we are required to furnish with each annual report on Form 10-K, a

report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and our independent registered public accountants are required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, in each case pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Any failure to maintain or develop effective controls, or any difficulties encountered in their implementation or improvement, could harm our operating results or impede our ability to file timely and accurate reports with the SEC. Any of the above could cause investors to lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline. In addition, we may become subject to sanctions or investigation by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC or Nasdaq.

Because our business depends on insurance brokers, we are exposed to certain risks arising out of our reliance on these distribution channels that could adversely affect our results.

Certain premiums from policyholders, where the business is produced by brokers, are collected directly by the brokers and forwarded to our insurance subsidiary. In certain jurisdictions, when the insured pays its policy premium to its broker for payment on behalf of our insurance subsidiary, the premium might be considered to have been paid under applicable insurance laws and regulations. Accordingly, the insured would no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premium from that broker. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with the brokers with whom we work. Where necessary, we review the financial condition of potential new brokers before we agree to transact business with them. Although the failure by any of our brokers to remit premiums to us has not been material to date, there may be instances where our brokers collect premiums but do not remit them to us and we may be required under applicable law to provide the coverage set forth in the policy despite the absence of related premiums being paid to us.

Because the possibility of these events occurring depends in large part upon the financial condition and internal operations of our brokers, we monitor broker behavior and review financial information on an as-needed basis. If we are unable to collect premiums from our brokers in the future, our underwriting profits may decline and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

We may become subject to additional government or market regulation which may have a material adverse impact on our business.

Our business could be adversely affected by changes in state laws, including those relating to asset and reserve valuation requirements, surplus requirements, limitations on investments and dividends, enterprise risk and risk-based capital requirements and, at the federal level, by laws and regulations that may affect certain aspects of the insurance industry, including proposals for preemptive federal regulation. The U.S. federal government generally has not directly regulated the insurance industry except for certain areas of the market, such as insurance for flood, nuclear and terrorism risks. However, the federal government has undertaken initiatives or considered legislation in several areas that may affect the insurance industry, including tort reform, corporate governance and the taxation of reinsurance companies.

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the FIO and vested the FIO with the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector, including to monitor the extent to which traditionally underserved communities and consumers have access to affordable non-health insurance products. In addition, the FIO has the ability to recommend to the Financial Stability Oversight Council the designation of an insurer as "systemically significant" and therefore subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve as a bank holding company. In December 2013, the FIO issued a report on alternatives to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States (the "Modernization Report"), including increasing national uniformity through either a federal charter or effective action by the states. Any additional regulations established as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act or actions in response to the Modernization Report could increase our costs of compliance or lead to disciplinary action. In addition, legislation has been introduced from time to time that, if enacted, could result in the federal government assuming a more direct role in the regulation of the insurance industry, including federal licensing in addition to or in lieu of state licensing and requiring reinsurance for natural catastrophes. We are unable to predict whether any legislation will be enacted or any regulations will be adopted, or the effect any such developments could have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our operating results have in the past varied from quarter to quarter and may not be indicative of our long-term prospects.

Our operating results are subject to fluctuation and have historically varied from quarter to quarter. We expect our quarterly results to continue to fluctuate in the future due to a number of factors, including the general economic conditions in the markets where we operate, the frequency of occurrence or severity of catastrophic or other insured events, fluctuating interest rates, claims exceeding our loss reserves, competition in our industry, deviations from expected renewal rates of our existing policies and contracts, adverse investment performance and the cost of reinsurance coverage.

In particular, we seek to underwrite products and make investments to achieve favorable returns on tangible stockholders' equity over the long term. In addition, our opportunistic nature and focus on long-term growth in tangible equity may result in fluctuations in gross written premiums from period to period as we concentrate on underwriting contracts that we believe will generate better long-term, rather than short-term, results. Accordingly, our short-term results of operations may not be indicative of our long-term prospects.

We are subject to reinsurance counterparty credit risk.

Although reinsurance makes the reinsurer liable to us to the extent the risk is transferred or ceded to the reinsurer, it does not relieve us (the ceding insurer) of our primary liability to our policyholders. Our reinsurers may not pay claims made by us on a timely basis, or they may not pay some or all of these claims. For example, reinsurers may default in their financial obligations to us as the result of insolvency, lack of liquidity, operational failure, fraud, asserted defenses based on agreement wordings or the principle of utmost good faith, asserted deficiencies in the documentation of agreements or other reasons. Any disputes with reinsurers regarding coverage under reinsurance contracts could be time consuming, costly and uncertain of success. We evaluate each reinsurance claim based on the facts of the case, historical experience with the reinsurer on similar claims and existing case law and include any amounts deemed uncollectible from the reinsurer in our reserve for uncollectible reinsurance. As of December 31, 2017, we had $63.5 million of aggregate reinsurance balances on paid and unpaid losses and ceded unearned premiums. These risks could cause us to incur increased net losses, and, therefore, adversely affect our financial condition.

We may act based on inaccurate or incomplete information regarding the accounts we underwrite.

We rely on information provided by insureds or their representatives when underwriting insurance policies. While we may make inquiries to validate or supplement the information provided, we may make underwriting decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information. It is possible that we will misunderstand the nature or extent of the activities or facilities and the corresponding extent of the risks that we insure because of our reliance on inadequate or inaccurate information.

We may require additional capital in the future, which may not be available or may only be available on unfavorable terms.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including our ability to write new business successfully and to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses. To the extent that the funds generated by this offering are insufficient to fund future operating requirements and cover claim losses, we may need to raise additional funds through financings or curtail our growth. Many factors will affect the amount and timing of our capital needs, including our growth rate and profitability, our claims experience, and the availability of reinsurance, market disruptions and other unforeseeable developments. If we need to raise additional capital, equity or debt financing may not be available at all or may be available only on terms that are not favorable to us. In the case of equity financings, dilution to our stockholders could result. In the case of debt financings, we may be subject to covenants that restrict our ability to freely operate our business. In any case, such securities may have rights, preferences and privileges that are senior to those of the shares of common stock currently outstanding. If we cannot obtain adequate capital on favorable terms or at all, we may not have sufficient funds to implement our operating plans and our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our business is highly dependent upon our information technology and telecommunications systems, including our browser-based underwriting system. Among other things, we rely on these systems to interact with brokers and insureds, to underwrite business, to prepare policies and process premiums, to perform actuarial and other modeling functions, to process claims and make claims payments and to prepare internal and external financial statements and information. In addition, some of these systems may include or rely on third-party systems not located on our premises or under our control. Events such as natural catastrophes, terrorist attacks, industrial accidents or computer viruses may cause our systems to fail or be inaccessible for extended periods of time. While we have implemented business contingency plans and other reasonable plans to protect our systems, sustained or repeated system failures or service denials could severely limit our ability to write and process new and renewal business, provide customer service, pay claims in a timely manner or otherwise operate in the ordinary course of business.

Our operations depend on the reliable and secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other data and information in our computer systems and networks. Computer viruses, hackers, employee misconduct and other external hazards could expose our systems to security breaches, cyber-attacks or other disruptions. In addition, we routinely transmit and receive personal, confidential and proprietary data and information by electronic means and are subject to numerous data privacy laws and regulations enacted in the jurisdictions in which we do business.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against breaches of security and other interference with our systems and networks, our systems and networks may be subject to breaches or interference. Any such event may result in operational disruptions as well as unauthorized access to or the disclosure or loss of our proprietary information or our customers’ data and information, which in turn may result in legal claims, regulatory scrutiny and liability, reputational damage, the incurrence of costs to eliminate or mitigate further exposure, the loss of customers or affiliated advisors, reputational harm or other damage to our business. In addition, the trend toward general public notification of such incidents could exacerbate the harm to our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we successfully protect our technology infrastructure and the confidentiality of sensitive data, we could suffer harm to our business and reputation if attempted security breaches are publicized. We cannot be certain that advances in criminal capabilities, discovery of new vulnerabilities, attempts to exploit vulnerabilities in our systems, data thefts, physical system or network break-ins or inappropriate access, or other developments will not compromise or breach the technology or other security measures protecting the networks and systems used in connection with our business.

Any failure to protect our intellectual property rights could impair our ability to protect our intellectual property, proprietary technology platform and brand, or we may be sued by third parties for alleged infringement of their proprietary rights.

Our success and ability to compete depend in part on our intellectual property, which includes our rights in our proprietary technology platform and our brand. We primarily rely on copyright, trade secret and trademark laws, and confidentiality or license agreements with our employees, customers, service providers, partners and others to protect our intellectual property rights. However, the steps we take to protect our intellectual property may be inadequate. Litigation brought to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights could be costly, time-consuming and distracting to management and could result in the impairment or loss of portions of our intellectual property. Additionally, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights may be met with defenses, counterclaims and countersuits attacking the validity and enforceability and scope of our intellectual property rights. Our failure to secure, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our brand and adversely impact our business.

Our success depends also in part on our not infringing on the intellectual property rights of others. Our competitors, as well as a number of other entities and individuals, may own or claim to own intellectual property relating to our industry. In the future, third parties may claim that we are infringing on their intellectual property rights, and we may be found to be infringing on such rights. Any claims or litigation could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial damages or ongoing royalty payments, prevent us from offering our services, or require that we comply with other unfavorable terms. Even if we were to prevail in such a dispute, any litigation could be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations.

We employ third-party and open source licensed software for use in our business, and the inability to maintain these licenses, errors in the software we license or the terms of open source licenses could result in increased costs, or reduced service levels, which would adversely affect our business.

Our business relies on certain third-party software obtained under licenses from other companies. We anticipate that we will continue to rely on such third-party software in the future. Although we believe that there are commercially reasonable alternatives to the third-party software we currently license, this may not always be the case, or it may be difficult or costly to replace. In addition, integration of new third-party software may require significant work and require substantial investment of our time and resources. Our use of additional or alternative third-party software would require us to enter into license agreements with third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Many of the risks associated with the use of third-party software cannot be eliminated, and these risks could negatively affect our business.

Additionally, the software powering our technology systems incorporates software covered by open source licenses. The terms of many open source licenses have not been interpreted by U.S. courts and there is a risk that the licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to operate our systems. In the event that portions of our proprietary software are determined to be subject to an open source license, we could be required to publicly release the affected portions of our source code or re-engineer all or a portion of our technology systems, each of which could reduce or eliminate the value of our technology systems. Such risk could be difficult or impossible to eliminate and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to underwrite risks accurately and charge competitive yet profitable rates to our policyholders, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be adversely affected.

In general, the premiums for our insurance policies are established at the time a policy is issued and, therefore, before all of our underlying costs are known. Like other insurance companies, we rely on estimates and assumptions in setting our premium rates. Establishing adequate premium rates is necessary, together with investment income, to generate sufficient revenue to offset losses, loss adjustment expenses and other underwriting costs and to earn a profit. If we do not accurately assess the risks that we assume, we may not charge adequate premiums to cover our losses and expenses, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our profitability. Alternatively, we could set our premiums too high, which could reduce our competitiveness and lead to lower revenues. Pricing involves the acquisition and analysis of historical loss data and the projection of future trends, loss costs and expenses, and inflation trends, among other factors, for each of our products in multiple risk tiers and many different markets. In order to accurately price our policies, we must:

•

collect and properly analyze a substantial volume of data from our insureds;

project both frequency and severity of our insureds’ losses with reasonable accuracy.

We seek to implement our pricing accurately in accordance with our assumptions. Our ability to undertake these efforts successfully and, as a result, accurately price our policies, is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including:

If actual renewals of our existing contracts do not meet expectations, our written premiums in future years and our future results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Many of our contracts are written for a one-year term. In our financial forecasting process, we make assumptions about the rates of renewal of our prior year’s contracts. The insurance and reinsurance industries have historically been cyclical businesses with intense competition, often based on price. If actual renewals do not meet expectations or if we choose not to write a renewal because of pricing conditions, our written premiums in future years and our future operations would be materially adversely affected.

We may change our underwriting guidelines or our strategy without stockholder approval.

Our management has the authority to change our underwriting guidelines or our strategy without notice to our stockholders and without stockholder approval. As a result, we may make fundamental changes to our operations without stockholder approval, which could result in our pursuing a strategy or implementing underwriting guidelines that may be materially different from the strategy or underwriting guidelines described in the section titled "Business" or elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Developments in accounting practices may require us to incur considerable additional expenses to comply, particularly if we are required to prepare information relating to prior periods for comparative purposes or to apply the new requirements retroactively. The impact of changes in current accounting practices and future pronouncements cannot be predicted but may affect the calculation of net income, stockholders’ equity and other relevant financial statement line items.

Our insurance subsidiary, Kinsale Insurance, is required to comply with statutory accounting principles ("SAP"). SAP and various components of SAP are subject to constant review by the NAIC and its task forces and committees, as well as state insurance departments, in an effort to address emerging issues and otherwise improve financial reporting. Various proposals are pending before committees and task forces of the NAIC, some of which, if enacted, could have negative effects on insurance industry participants. The NAIC continuously examines existing laws and regulations. We cannot predict whether or in what form such reforms will be enacted and, if so, whether the enacted reforms will positively or negatively affect us.

We must accurately and timely evaluate and pay claims that are made under our policies. Many factors affect our ability to pay claims accurately and timely, including the training and experience of our claims representatives, our claims organization’s culture and the effectiveness of our management, our ability to develop or select and implement appropriate procedures and systems to support our claims functions and other factors. Our failure to pay claims accurately and timely could lead to regulatory and administrative actions or material litigation, undermine our reputation in the marketplace and materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, if we do not train new claims employees effectively or if we lose a significant number of experienced claims employees, our claims department’s ability to handle an increasing workload could be adversely affected. In addition to potentially requiring that growth be slowed in the affected markets, our business could suffer from decreased quality of claims work which, in turn, could adversely affect our operating margins.

Global climate change may have an adverse effect on our financial results.

Although uncertainty remains as to the nature and effect of future efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and thereby mitigate their potential long-term effects on the climate, a broad spectrum of scientific evidence suggests that manmade production of greenhouse gas has had an adverse effect on the global climate. Our insurance policies are generally written for one year and repriced annually to reflect changing exposures. However, assessing the risk of loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change and the range of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to extreme weather events and slow onset events, remains a challenge and might adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our executive offices and insurance operations are located in Richmond, Virginia, which occupy approximately42,000 square feet of office space for annual rent of approximately$0.5 million. The lease for this space expires in 2020.

We do not own any real property. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current needs.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are subject to legal proceedings in the normal course of operating our insurance business. We are not involved in any legal proceedings which reasonably could be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("Nasdaq") under the symbol "KNSL" on July 28, 2016. Before then, there was no public market for our common stock. As of February 23, 2018, we had 96 stockholders of record of our common stock.

The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported by Nasdaq:

2016 Period

High

Low

Third Quarter (beginning July 28, 2016)

$

22.65

$

18.00

Fourth Quarter

$

34.91

$

20.81

2017 Period

High

Low

First Quarter

$

35.08

$

27.19

Second Quarter

$

38.32

$

30.78

Third Quarter

$

47.78

$

34.70

Fourth Quarter

$

46.19

$

39.38

Dividend Policy

We paid dividends of $0.06 per share in each quarter of 2017. We paid dividends of $0.05 per share during the third quarter of 2016, and $0.05 per share during the fourth quarter of 2016.

On February 12, 2018, the Company’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.07 per share of common stock. This dividend is payable on March 15, 2018 to all stockholders of record on February 28, 2018.

The declaration, payment and amount of future dividends will be subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors will give consideration to various risks and uncertainties, including those discussed under the headings "Risk Factors" and "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K when determining whether to declare and pay dividends, as well as the amount thereof. Our Board of Directors may take into account a variety of factors when determining whether to declare any dividends, including (1) our financial condition, liquidity, results of operations (including our ability to generate cash flow in excess of expenses and our expected or actual net income), retained earnings and capital requirements, (2) general business conditions, (3) legal, tax and regulatory limitations, (4) contractual prohibitions and other restrictions, (5) the effect of a dividend or dividends on our financial strength ratings and (6) any other factors that our Board of Directors deem relevant.

Our status as a holding company and a legal entity separate and distinct from our subsidiaries affects our ability to pay dividends and make other payments. As a holding company without significant operations of our own, the principal sources of our funds are dividends and other payments from our subsidiaries. The ability of our insurance subsidiary to pay dividends to us is subject to limits under insurance laws of the state in which our insurance subsidiary is domiciled. See "Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Business and Our Industry – Because we are a holding company and substantially all of our operations are conducted by our insurance subsidiary, our ability to pay dividends and service our debt obligations depends on our ability to obtain cash dividends or other permitted

payments from our insurance subsidiary" and "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources" and "Regulation."

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

Since January 1, 2017, the registrant has not sold any equity securities that were not registered under the Securities Act.

Performance Graph

The following performance graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return of an investment in (1) our common stock, (2) the cumulative total returns to the Nasdaq Composite Index and (3) the cumulative total returns to the Nasdaq Insurance Index, for the period from July 28, 2016 (the date our common stock began trading on Nasdaq) through December 31, 2017.

The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 and the reinvestment of dividends, if any. Such returns are based on historical results and are not indicative of future performance.

The following tables present our selected consolidated financial and other data, at the dates and for the periods indicated. The selected consolidated financial and other data set forth below as of December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements for those years.

These historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for any future period. The following information is only a summary and should be read in conjunction with the section entitled "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Underwriting income is a non-GAAP financial measure. See "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" for a reconciliation of net income to underwriting income in accordance with GAAP.

(2)

Tangible stockholders’ equity is a non-GAAP financial measure. See "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Financial Condition" for a reconciliation of stockholders’ equity to tangible stockholders’ equity.

The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of total indebtedness for borrowed money, including capitalized lease obligations, to the sum of total indebtedness for borrowed money, including capitalized lease obligations, and stockholders’ equity.

(4)

For our insurance subsidiary, the excess of assets over liabilities as determined in accordance with statutory accounting principles as determined by the NAIC.

(5)

The loss ratio is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of losses and loss adjustment expenses to net earned premiums, net of the effects of reinsurance.

(6)

The expense ratio is the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses to net earned premiums.

(7)

The combined ratio is the sum of the loss ratio and the expense ratio. A combined ratio under 100% generally indicates an underwriting profit. A combined ratio over 100% generally indicates an underwriting loss.

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report. The discussion and analysis below include certain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors described in "Risk Factors" that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, those forward-looking statements. See "Forward-Looking Statements."

Overview

Founded in 2009, we are an established and growing specialty insurance company. We focus exclusively on the E&S market in the U.S., where we can use our underwriting expertise to write coverages for hard-to-place small business risks and personal lines risks. We market and sell these insurance products in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands primarily through a network of independent insurance brokers. We have an experienced and cohesive management team, that has an average of over 25 years of relevant experience. Many of our employees and members of our management team have also worked together for decades at other E&S insurance companies.

We have one reportable segment, our Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance segment, which offers P&C insurance products through the E&S market. In 2017, the percentage breakdown of our gross written premiums was 93.4% casualty and 6.6% property. Our commercial lines offerings include construction, small business, excess casualty, energy, general casualty, professional liability, life sciences, product liability, allied health, health care, commercial property, management liability, environmental, inland marine, public entity and commercial insurance. We also write a small amount of homeowners insurance in the personal lines market, which in aggregate represented 3.9% of our gross written premiums in 2017.

Our goal is to deliver long-term value for our stockholders by growing our business and generating attractive returns. We seek to accomplish this by generating consistent and attractive underwriting profits while managing our capital prudently. We have built a company that is entrepreneurial and highly efficient, using our proprietary technology platform and leveraging the expertise of our highly experienced employees in our daily operations. We believe our systems and technology are at the digital forefront of the insurance industry, allowing us to quickly collect and analyze data, thereby improving our ability to manage our business and reducing response times for our customers. We believe that we have differentiated ourselves from our competitors by effectively leveraging technology, vigilantly controlling expenses and maintaining control over our underwriting and claims management.

Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations

The MLQS

Prior to our IPO in 2016, a significant amount of our business had been reinsured through our MLQS with third-party reinsurers. This agreement allowed us to cede a portion of the risk related to certain lines of business that we underwrite in exchange for a portion of our direct written premiums on that business, less a ceding commission. The MLQS was subject to annual renewal; however, we retained the right to adjust the amount of business we ceded on a quarterly basis in accordance with the terms of the MLQS. We monitored the ceding percentage under the MLQS and adjusted this percentage based on our projected direct written premiums and future business conditions in our industry. Generally, we increased the ceding percentage when gross written premiums were growing more strongly relative to the growth rate of Kinsale Insurance’s capital position, and decreased the ceding percentage when Kinsale Insurance’s capital position was growing more strongly relative to the growth rate of gross written premiums. In periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting

capacity (known as a hard market), the E&S market may grow significantly more rapidly than the standard insurance market as business may shift from the standard market to the E&S market dramatically.

We entered into the MLQS in the middle of 2012. Effective January 1, 2013, the MLQS had a ceding percentage of 45% and a provisional ceding commission rate of 35%. On January 1, 2014, we increased the ceding percentage under the MLQS from 45% to 50% and the provisional ceding commission rate from 35% to 40%. Effective December 31, 2014, 45% of the contract covering the period July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 (the "2012 MLQS") was commuted, and the remaining 55% of this contract was commuted effective January 1, 2015. Effective January 1, 2015, the ceding percentage under the MLQS was 50% and the provisional ceding commission rate was 41%. The ceding percentage remained at 50% until October 1, 2015, at which time we decreased the percentage to 40%, while the provisional ceding commission rate remained at 41%. A lower ceding percentage generally results in higher net earned premiums and a reduction in ceding commissions in future periods.

Effective January 1, 2016, we further reduced the ceding percentage from 40% to 15% while maintaining the provisional ceding commission rate at 41%, and we commuted the MLQS covering the 2014 calendar year. We reduced the ceding percentage due to Kinsale Insurance’s capital position growing more strongly as a result of the profitability of the business relative to the growth rate of gross written premiums. As a result of the successful completion of our IPO in August 2016, we terminated and commuted the MLQS contract on October 1, 2016, which covered the period January 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016, and the MLQS was not renewed for the 2017 calendar year. Effective January 1, 2017, the remaining MLQS was commuted covering the 2015 calendar year, and there are no remaining MLQS contracts outstanding.

The effect of the MLQS on our results of operations is primarily reflected in our ceded written premiums, losses and loss adjustment expenses, as well as our underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses. The following tables summarize the effect of the MLQS on our underwriting income for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:

Year Ended December 31, 2017

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Year Ended December 31, 2015

($ in thousands)

Including Quota Share

Effect of Quota Share

Excluding Quota Share

Including Quota Share

Effect of Quota Share

Excluding Quota Share

Including Quota Share

Effect of Quota Share

Excluding Quota Share

Gross written premiums

$

223,191

$

—

$

223,191

$

188,478

$

—

$

188,478

$

177,009

$

—

$

177,009

Ceded written premiums

(33,719

)

—

(33,719

)

(21,214

)

10,269

(31,483

)

(92,991

)

(63,991

)

(29,000

)

Net written premiums

$

189,472

$

—

$

189,472

$

167,264

$

10,269

$

156,995

$

84,018

$

(63,991

)

$

148,009

Net retention (1)

84.9

%

84.9

%

88.7

%

83.3

%

47.5

%

83.6

%

Net earned premiums

$

176,053

$

—

$

176,053

$

133,816

$

(16,996

)

$

150,812

$

74,322

$

(67,950

)

$

142,272

Losses and loss adjustment expenses

(103,680

)

—

(103,680

)

(70,961

)

4,380

(75,341

)

(42,238

)

30,978

(73,216

)

Underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses

(44,146

)

—

(44,146

)

(28,551

)

11,936

(40,487

)

(2,809

)

34,254

(37,063

)

Underwriting income (2)

$

28,227

$

—

$

28,227

$

34,304

$

(680

)

$

34,984

$

29,275

$

(2,718

)

$

31,993

Loss ratio

58.9

%

—

%

—

53.0

%

25.8

%

—

56.8

%

45.6

%

—

Expense ratio

25.1

%

—

%

—

21.3

%

70.2

%

—

3.8

%

50.4

%

—

Combined ratio

84.0

%

—

%

—

74.3

%

96.0

%

—

60.6

%

96.0

%

—

Adjusted loss ratio (3)

—

—

58.9

%

—

—

50.0

%

—

—

51.5

%

Adjusted expense ratio (3)

—

—

25.1

%

—

—

26.8

%

—

—

26.0

%

Adjusted combined ratio (3)

—

—

84.0

%

—

—

76.8

%

—

—

77.5

%

(1)The ratio of net written premiums to gross written premiums.

(2) Underwriting income is a non-GAAP financial measure. See "— Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" for a reconciliation of net income to underwriting income in accordance with GAAP.

(3) Our adjusted loss ratio, adjusted expense ratio and adjusted combined ratio are non-GAAP financial measures. We define our adjusted loss ratio, adjusted expense ratio and adjusted combined ratio as each of our loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio, respectively, excluding the effects of the MLQS. We use these adjusted ratios as an internal performance measure in the management of our operations because we believe they give our management and other users of our financial information useful insight into our results of operations and our underlying business performance. Our adjusted loss ratio, adjusted expense ratio and adjusted combined ratio should not be viewed as substitutes for our loss ratio, expense ratio and combined ratio, respectively, which are presented in accordance with GAAP.

Our results of operations may be difficult to compare from year to year as we made periodic adjustments to the amount of business we ceded under the terms of the MLQS, may have changed the negotiated terms of the MLQS upon renewal, and may have increased or decreased the ceding commission under the MLQS based on the loss experience of the business ceded. In light of the impact of the MLQS on our results of operations, we internally evaluated our financial performance both including and excluding the effects of the MLQS.

Components of our results of operations

Gross written premiums

Gross written premiums are the amounts received or to be received for insurance policies written or assumed by us during a specific period of time without reduction for policy acquisition costs, reinsurance costs or other deductions. The volume of our gross written premiums in any given period is generally influenced by:

•

New business submissions;

•

Binding of new business submissions into policies;

•

Renewals of existing policies; and

•

Average size and premium rate of bound policies.

We earn insurance premiums on a pro rata basis over the term of the policy. Our insurance policies generally have a term of one year. Net earned premiums represent the earned portion of our gross written premiums, less that portion of our gross written premiums that is ceded to third-party reinsurers under our reinsurance agreements.

Ceded written premiums

Ceded written premiums are the amount of gross written premiums ceded to reinsurers. We enter into reinsurance contracts to limit our exposure to potential large losses as well as to provide additional capacity for growth. Ceded written premiums are earned over the reinsurance contract period in proportion to the period of risk covered. The volume of our ceded written premiums is impacted by the level of our gross written premiums and any decision we make to increase or decrease retention levels.

Net investment income

Net investment income is an important component of our results of operations. We earn investment income on our portfolio of cash and invested assets. Our cash and invested assets are primarily comprised of fixed maturity securities, and may also include cash and cash equivalents, equity securities and short-term investments. The principal factors that influence net investment income are the size of our investment portfolio and the yield on that portfolio. As measured by amortized cost (which excludes changes in fair value, such as changes in interest rates), the size of our investment portfolio is mainly a function of our invested equity capital along with premiums we receive from our insureds less payments on policyholder claims.

Net investment gains

Net investment gains are a function of the difference between the amount received by us on the sale of a security and the security's amortized cost, as well as any "other-than-temporary" impairments recognized in earnings.

Losses and loss adjustment expenses are a function of the amount and type of insurance contracts we write and the loss experience associated with the underlying coverage. In general, our losses and loss adjustment expenses are affected by:

•

Frequency of claims associated with the particular types of insurance contracts that we write;

•

Trends in the average size of losses incurred on a particular type of business;

•

Mix of business written by us;

•

Changes in the legal or regulatory environment related to the business we write;

•

Trends in legal defense costs;

•

Wage inflation; and

•

Inflation in medical costs.

Losses and loss adjustment expenses are based on an actuarial analysis of the estimated losses, including losses incurred during the period and changes in estimates from prior periods. Losses and loss adjustment expenses may be paid out over a period of years.

Underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses

Underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses include policy acquisition costs and other underwriting expenses. Policy acquisition costs are principally comprised of the commissions we pay our brokers, net of ceding commissions we receive on business ceded under certain reinsurance contracts. Policy acquisition costs that are directly related to the successful acquisition of those policies are deferred. The amortization of such policy acquisition costs is charged to expense in proportion to premium earned over the policy life. Other underwriting expenses represent the general and administrative expenses of our insurance business including employment costs, telecommunication and technology costs, the costs of our lease, and legal and auditing fees. We reduced the ceding percentage under the MLQS from 40% to 15% effective January 1, 2016, and subsequently terminated and commuted the MLQS effective October 1, 2016.

Income tax expense

Currently all of our income tax expense relates to federal income taxes. Kinsale Insurance is generally not subject to income taxes in the states in which it operates; however, our non-insurance subsidiaries are subject to state income taxes. The amount of income tax expense or benefit recorded in future periods will depend on the jurisdictions in which we operate and the tax laws and regulations in effect. Among other things, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 ("TCJA") enacted on December 22, 2017 lowers the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% starting January 1, 2018. Our income tax expense for periods beginning in 2018 will be based on the federal corporate income tax rate in the TCJA, and as a result, we expect our 2018 annual effective tax rate to be significantly lower than our current year effective tax rate.

Key metrics

We discuss certain key metrics, described below, which provide useful information about our business and the operational factors underlying our financial performance.

Underwriting income is a non-GAAP financial measure. We define underwriting income as net income, excluding net investment income, net investment gains and losses, and other income and expenses. See "—Reconciliation of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" for a reconciliation of net income to underwriting income in accordance with GAAP.

Loss ratio, expressed as a percentage, is the ratio of losses and loss adjustment expenses to net earned premiums, net of the effects of reinsurance.

Expense ratio, expressed as a percentage, is the ratio of underwriting, acquisition and insurance expenses to net earned premiums.

Combined ratio is the sum of the loss ratio and the expense ratio. A combined ratio under 100% generally indicates an underwriting profit. A combined ratio over 100% generally indicates an underwriting loss.

Adjusted loss ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure. We define adjusted loss ratio as the loss ratio, excluding the effects of the MLQS. For additional detail on the impact of the MLQS on our results of operations, see "—Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations — The MLQS."

Adjusted expense ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure. We define adjusted expense ratio as the expense ratio, excluding the effects of the MLQS. For additional detail on the impact of the MLQS on our results of operations, see "—Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations — The MLQS."

Adjusted combined ratio is a non-GAAP financial measure. We define adjusted combined ratio as the loss ratio, excluding the effects of the MLQS. For additional detail on the impact of the MLQS on our results of operations, see "—Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations — The MLQS."

Return on equity is net income expressed on an annualized basis as a percentage of average beginning and ending stockholders’ equity during the period. Our overall financial goal is to produce a return on equity in the mid-teens over the long-term.

Net retention ratio is the ratio of net written premiums to gross written premiums.

Results of Operations

Year ended December 31, 2017 compared to year ended December 31, 2016

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016: